Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

New Industries (Land)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent he is now co-operating with local authorities with a view to assisting them to develop and prepare disused land for the provision of new industries, especially n the Development Areas.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): Local authorities were invited in March last to submit proposals for the clearance of derelict sites to the Board of Trade, and they have been offered the technical advice and guidance, if required, of my right hon. Friend's Department and of the Board's Scottish Controller. Fourteen schemes have already been approved.

Mr. Dempsey: Does the Minister also mean that, in addition to these wide powers, local authorities may have opportunities of servicing sites by raising moneys either by grant aid or by local rates with a view to meeting the intense competition from Europe in endeavouring to attract industries to the locality?

Mr. Galbraith: I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to tell me.

Mr. Dempsey: I take it that there is no answer to my supplementary question?

West Aberdeenshire

Mr. Hendry: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Cairngorms are, with one exception, the highest mountain mass in the United Kingdom, that, for the purposes

of the Review of Highland Policy, Command Paper No. 785, the greater part of these mountains and their foothills do not form part of the Highlands, that in the upper valleys of the Dee and Don land is cultivated at a higher altitude than in any other part of the country, and that there is a lack of employment in these valleys outwith the short tourist season; and whether he will include in the Highlands, for the purpose of the White Paper, those parts of the constituency of West Aberdeenshire which are Highland in character.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): My right hon. Friend is aware of conditions in the areas my hon. Friend has in mind, but they are broadly similar to those in rural areas in many other parts of the country. It has been recognised for a long time, however, that conditions in the seven crofting counties in certain respects present unique problems that require special consideration.

Mr. Hendry: Does not my hon. Friend realise that there has been as much depopulation from the excluded parts of the Highlands as from the crofting counties?

Mr. Leburn: My right hon. Friend is always willing to give special consideration to problems brought to his notice, but conditions there do not differ greatly from upland areas in other parts of Scotland, including the south of Scotland.

Hospitals, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now received the reports from the work study consultants employed to undertake assignments in Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and Aberdeen.

Mr. Galbraith: Reports have been made on all these assignments to the boards of management of the hospitals concerned, who were the clients of the consultants employed. All the assignments are now virtually complete and the recommendations have been largely implemented.

Mr. Hannan: While it would appear that this is a case of trying to lock the


stable door after the horse has bolted, will the Minister nevertheless undertake to place copies of these reports in the Library for the use of Members?

Mr. Galbraith: I will certainly consider that

Hospital Service (Work Study Organisation)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if arrangements have now been completed for setting up a work study organisation in the hospital service.

Mr. Galbraith: The initial arrangements for setting up a work study organisation in the Scottish hospital service are almost complete and the regional hospital boards are now making appointments to eleven new posts. The work study group in my right hon. Friend's Department is already functioning.

Mr. Hannan: Will the Minister bear in mind that, while many of us have no objection in principle to work study for the purpose of making the service more efficient, many of us would oppose it strenuously if such schemes were used for instituting a campaign of economy, in view of the Guillebaud Committee's Report to the effect that there was no waste or extravagance?

Mr. Galbraith: The object of this work study is to do the job in a better way than it is being done at present. I personally think it is an extremely valuable kind of investigation to carry out.

Mr. Hannan: Can the Under-Secretary say how much the institution of these proposals will cost and whether they also will be made available to hon. Members?

Mr. Galbraith: I would like to have notice of that supplementary question.

Mr. Hannan: Surely that is quite a simple question. Are we not entitled to further information about the institution of such an important form of supervision over the health service scheme? Surely to ask that such a report should be made available to hon. Members is quite a simple request to make.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman asked about the cost. I said that I should be glad if he would put down a Question on the Notice Paper.

Forth and Clyde Canal

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further consideration has been given to the issues raised in respect of the Forth and Clyde canal following recommendations of the Bowes Committee on Inland Waterways.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): Any decision to close the canal, as recommended by the Bowes Committee, would be a matter for the British Transport Commission and for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. The interests affected will need to be consulted and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for his part, is at present in communication with the fishermen's associations concerned to obtain their views on the recommendation of the Committee.

Mr. Hannan: There was a recommendation that the Glasgow arm of the Forth and Clyde canal should be redeveloped, and the Committee, while making no firm recommendation, suggested that the main canal should be closed. Has any consideration been given to that point?

Mr. Macpherson: The Inland Waterways Redevelopment Advisory Committee has been concentrating on the Monkland portion of the canal network and has not yet considered the other parts.

Northern Scotland

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the present disparities between the southern industrial belt of Scotland and the northern areas of Scotland, what steps he is taking to increase population, industries, transport and housing facilities in the northern areas.

Mr. N. Macpherson: It would be difficult to specify in one Answer all the steps that are being taken to assist the North of Scotland. I would remind the hon. and learned Member of the assistance which is being given through D.A.T.A.C. and the Development Commission, and which will be given under the Local Employment Bill and the Highland Shipping Bill; of the greatly increased expenditure on roads; the remote area subsidy to local authority


houses; and the other forms of assistance mentioned in the recent White Paper on Highland Policy, in the booklet "Highland Opportunities" and in other publications.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister realise that there is a grave contradiction between that Answer and the Government promises, and that industry in the North and North-East of Scotland has been penalised by the cutting down of railways services and in various other Ways? Will the hon. Gentleman see that these contradictions are resolved in the interests of the North of Scotland?

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. and learned Gentleman has previously asked a Question about railways to which an Answer was given on 8th December. There is no contradiction whatever of the Government's promises. Indeed, my Answer shows how they are being carried out.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Joint Under-Secretary say what proportion of the financial assistance being given to the Highlands is in the form of public enterprise and what proportion is in the form of private enterprise?

Mr. Macpherson: No, Sir; I should require notice of that Question.

Natural Resources

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a detailed statement on the various investigations under the auspices of his Department into the natural national resources of Scotland concerned with land, water, minerals, forestry and the present distribution of population and its age structure, indicating the results achieved to date.

Mr. Galbraith: The detailed surveys carried out by local planning authorities provide a general conspectus of physical resources and population trends. They are supplemented, as required, by specialist investigations by the Government Departments and other agencies. In particular, the Scottish Council has just announced a wide inquiry into Scotland's natural resources, in which it has been assured of the co-operation of the Government Departments concerned.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that these investigations should

be carried out at the very highest Governmental level? What evidence has he that that is being done?

Mr. Galbraith: If tomorrow the hon. and learned Gentleman reads in the OFFICIAL REPORT the Answer which I have just given him, he will appreciate that that in fact is being done.

Telephone Conversations (Interception)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has given to police authorities in Scotland regarding the use of telephone tapping; and to what extent it has been his practice to allow information or evidence so acquired to be communicated to others than the proper legal authorities.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many cases, since October, 1957, he has authorised the disclosure of information obtained by telephone tapping to any person or body outside the public service.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): Scottish chief constables are aware of the recommendations of the Birkett Report, which were accepted and are acted upon by the Government. In accordance with these recommendations, no information obtained under the authority of a warrant of the Secretary of State is disclosed to any outside body.

Mr. Woodburn: May we have a general assurance that, so far as possible, conversations on the telephone are private to the people taking part in them, and that at a later date they will not be used in evidence in any kind of court, in cases of divorce or otherwise?

Mr. Maclay: Listening to telephone conversations with the consent of the subscriber does not require my authority, although it is true to say that I am not aware of any such case arising in Scotland. Beyond that it is difficult to go in answer to a supplementary question.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if his original Answer is correct, as I am sure is the case, his


standard, or record, in this matter is very much better than that of the Home Secretary? Can he say what sanction we can apply to the Home Secretary to bring his standard up to that of the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Maclay: I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to telephone tapping or the listening in to telephone conversations with the consent of the subscriber.

Mr. Lipton: I am referring to the authorisation of disclosure.

Mr. Maclay: I have stated the position in Scotland, for which I am responsible.

Hospitals, East Fife (Geriatric Accommodation)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of geriatric beds available in the area of the East Fife Hospitals Board of Management, and the number of cases awaiting admission to those beds; and if he will make a statement regarding the delay in providing additional beds in Buckhaven.

Mr. Galbraith: There are 93 beds. The waiting list is estimated at 127. My right hon. Friend appreciates the concern in East Fife about geriatric accommodation, but the regional hospital board is hoping to start work on new building next year which will help to meet the geriatric need.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that in the County of Fife we have only about 47 beds per 100,000 of the population compared with 165 beds per 100,000 of the population in the Eastern Regional Hospital Board area? In view of the serious plight of the aged chronic sick in Kirkcaldy and district, does not he consider that what is necessary is the immediate and effective implementation of the Government's General Election promises to speed up hospital building?

M. Galbraith: I am aware that the situation in Fife has not been as good as in some other parts of the area. I hope that the new building to which I have referred will help to meet the situation.

House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to make known to those likely to be interested in Scotland, the provisions of the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959, regarding grants for the provision of standard amenities.

Mr. Galbraith: In addition to Press publicity, copies of a leaflet have been distributed, and a more detailed booklet with illustrative plans has been published. My right hon. Friend is anxious to see these grants taken up as widely as possible, and arrangements are being made for a number of practical demonstrations in the course of next year.

Mr. Millan: May I remind the Joint Under-Secretary of State that, in the first published figures for the quarter ending 30th September, only sixteen of these grants have been given in Scotland; and does not this demonstrate that the land lords of Scotland are not interested in this sort of thing? What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do about getting rid of private landlordism of tenement properties in Scotland?

Mr. Galbraith: I think it unnecessary for me to answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Mr. Manuel: Can the hon. Gentleman answer it?

Mr. Galbraith: Regarding the first part of his supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the figures for grants in the September quarterly return, while disappointingly small, relate to a scheme which has been running only for a month or two and that it is still early to judge whether it will be a success.

Housing

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of the total number of houses likely to be completed in Scotland in the current year; and what percentage of the actual completions for 1958 the estimate for 1959 represents.

Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend expects that total completions in 1959 will be between 27,000 and 28,000, or about 87 per cent. of the 1958 figure.

Mr. Millan: In view of the appalling housing conditions which still obtain in many parts of Scotland, is the Under-Secretary aware that the percentage figure he has just quoted will be greeted with considerable concern? What steps is he taking to stimulate an increase in house building in Scotland?

Mr. Galbraith: Naturally, my right hon. Friend is anxious that housing conditions in Scotland should improve as Quickly as possible. But the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, the House, must appreciate that there is no restriction on local authority building and that, as building on virgin sites is completed, clearance and redevelopment of sites in the centres of towns is bound to slow clown the total number of houses built.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the past year has been the best building year which we have ever had? Is not there something wrong with Government policy if, during this excellent building year, the number of houses completed has fallen by 13 per cent. compared with the number for the previous year? Does not he appreciate that the policy is wrong, and that if he wants to get houses, he will have to amend it?

Mr. Galbraith: I cannot accept the conclusion of the hon. Gentleman. The reason why house building is not at the rate it was is, first, that a great deal of the housing need has been met.

Mr. Manuel: In what areas?

Mr. Galbraith: Secondly, as I stated in answer to the first supplementary question, it is easier to build on virgin sites than on sites in the centres of towns.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman said there were no restrictions on house building. Has he forgotten the difficulty of getting money and the inadequate subsidies?

Mr. Galbraith: If local authorities spread their subsidies and charged reasonable rents they would find no difficulties.

Tay Bridge

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to say whether the Tay bridge

will be completed at the same time as the Forth road bridge.

Mr. N. Macpherson: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not think that this would be possible and I would refer the hon. Lady to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) on 1st December.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have read that reply with great care? Does he not think that, once the consulting engineers have completed their preliminary work, it would do a tremendous amount to help bring industry to the North-East of Scotland? Can he give an assurance that if all the surveys are satisfactory the Government will press on to try to get this bridge completed at the same time as the Forth road bridge?

Mr. Macpherson: We think it will take about three years from start to finish to build the Tay road bridge. Of course, we have not yet got to the stage where we can make a start. I should, however, say to my hon. Friend that the main benefit we expect to see from the Forth road bridge will be enjoyed by traffic moving to the north-east area by the present route.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Is my hon. Friend aware that drivers would have to make a detour unless the Tay bridge is completed at the same time? If it is to take only three years to complete this bridge, would my hon. Friend say whether he thinks that it is a matter of great urgency to try to press forward with the work?

Mr. Macpherson: It will be for traffic itself to choose which route it takes. On the information that is available to us, the longer-distance road traffic will take the present route and not go over the Tay bridge.

Compulsory Purchase Order, West Summerlee

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the nature of his reply to the letter sent to him by Coat-bridge Town Council regarding the West Summerlee Compulsory Purchase Order, 1958.

Mr. Galbraith: I assume the hon. Member has in mind the letter sent to


my right hon. Friend by the town council on 24th November expressing disappointment at his decision. This letter has been acknowledged but the case cannot be reopened.

Mr. Dempsey: Does not the Question read very clearly and ask the nature of the reply of the Secretary of State? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, by excluding this area, the Government have virtually abandoned their promised slum clearance programme in this town due to lack of sites? Does he realise that, by rejecting the recommendations and findings of an advocate appointed by the Secretary of State and responsible to the Secretary of State, the Government have actually interfered with a judicial finding? Do they not think that is a dangerous practice? Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will review the position?

Mr. Galbraith: Naturally, as he appoints the Commissioner who is to carry out these inquiries, the Secretary of State has the perfectly proper constitutional right to review the recommendation of the Commissioner afterwards and either confirm or not, as he did in this case. My right hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties which face the hon. Member's local authority and will be very happy for the officials of that authority to discuss the matter with his officials to see ways out of the difficulty.

Mr. Dempsey: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply—shades of the Devlin Commission—I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this subject in an early Adjournment debate.

Mr. Speaker: That is yet another variation of the formula. I wish hon. Members would stick to the usual formula.

Research Projects

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action the Government are prepared to take themselves to establish research and other public services in Scotland in order to assist in the restoration of Scottish prosperity; and what inducements the Government are prepared to offer to potential private enterprise.

Mr. N. Macpherson: As regards research projects under Government con-

trol, I would refer the right hon. Member to the replies given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Members for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) and for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) on 26th November and 8th December. Private research projects will be eligible for the whole range of benefits under the Local Employment Bill if they provide employment in areas of high and persistent unemployment.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the Minister say, first, whether the Government are really determined to restore prosperity to Scotland? If so, that must be done either by public enterprise or private enterprise. Can he say whether the Government are prepared to introduce more public enterprise in Scotland? If not, are they prepared to give sufficient inducements to private enterprise? Can he say whether there is any truth in the suggestion made this morning that the Government are prepared to give very considerable assistance to any of the motor car industries which are prepared to establish themselves in Scotland?

Mr. Macpherson: The Question asks about research services and other public services. I am afraid I could not reply to the last part of the supplementary question as I do not think that would be in order. As my right hon. Friend explained last week, the Government are anxious to give every possible encouragement to research, both public and private, coming to establish itself in Scotland, but such projects are not easy to find.

Mr. Woodburn: If the Government do not show an example, how can they expect private enterprise to do so?

Hospital Beds

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many beds have become available for other purposes as a result of the decrease in the need for tuberculosis treatment; and whether these are being fully utilised for maternity, geriatric, and other urgent needs.

Mr. Galbraith: Between June, 1958, and June, 1959, some 900 tuberculosis beds became redundant. About 700 have already been put to other uses, over half being used for the elderly


sick. Most of the remainder are closed only temporarily while arrangements are being made for their future use.

Mr. Woodburn: In view of the desperate urgency for this provision and the complaints made about hardship, could not the Minister speed up this transition of the beds from their former use as tuberculosis beds to use to meet these other urgent needs?

Mr. Galbraith: I think that if the right hon. Member looks at the figures he will see that we have not been doing too badly. I have a great deal of sympathy for the point of view of the right hon. Member, but, due to structure and remoteness, some of the hospitals are not suited to the purpose he has in mind.

Small Burghs

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up a commission of investigation on the future of small burghs, in view of the accumulating evidence that many are unable effectively to discharge their functions.

Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Why not? Has the hon. Gentleman or the Department any means of finding out how many small burghs are unable or unwilling, or both, to discharge their functions? Is he aware that there is at least one in my constituency, which is mentioned in a later Question, which is quite unable to fulfil the prime function of housing provision? What steps is he taking to see that that deficiency is remedied?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member has his own opinion about one particular small burgh, but that would not justify my right hon. Friend in carrying out the inquiry the hon. Member desires.

Mr. John MacLeod: Could not the Under-Secretary advise the Secretary of State to have another look at the Cairncross Report?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Hamilton: Is not the Minister prepared to answer his own colleague? Is he aware that there is a great problem among the small burghs? Is he aware that people who are unfortunate enough

to live in some burghs which cannot discharge their functions suffer considerable hardships? Is he not prepared to give an answer?

Mr. Galbraith: I have no evidence of any general demand for the type of inquiry the hon. Member has suggested.

Mental Defectives (Accommodation)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the overall shortage of accommodation for mental defectives; and which regional board areas are worst off in this respect.

Mr. Galbraith: While the ultimate need for accommodation cannot be assessed with any precision, there is undoubtedly a shortage for certain classes of notably low-grade children. The current building programme will provide 800 additional places in the next three years, and further proposals are under consideration. The regions least well served at present are the North, North-Eastern and South-Eastern.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister give any indication of how this figure of 800 in the next three years measures up to the scope of the problem? It is no use his telling us that facilities for another 800 are to be provided, if the overall shortage cannot be dealt with. Will he inform the House of the position and give some indication when we are to get legislation on mental health in Scotland?

Mr. Galbraith: The figure of 800 which I have just mentioned will produce an increase in the South-Eastern Region of 18 per cent. As to the Mental Health Bill, I think the hon. Member will not have to wait too long for that.

Housing, Culross

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the small Burgh of Culross has built no houses since 1949, that there is a housing list containing the names of large families, and that in one instance a man, wife, and seven children are living in one room, and have no prospects of being rehoused; and whether, in these circumstances, he will take steps to facilitate the building of at least twenty additional houses by the Scottish Special Housing Association.

Mr. Galbraith: The Scottish Special Housing Association has recently built ten houses in this very small burgh. Six of these have been provided without cost to the town council, and a further allocation of this kind would not at present be possible.

Mr. Hamilton: Why on earth not? Is the Minister aware that the case I have described in the Question is by no means exceptional? A man, his wife and seven children are living in one room and cannot get a house. This is in one of the burghs which have not built a house since 1949. This makes absolute nonsense of the earlier replies of the hon. Gentleman to Questions on this subject. It also makes nonsense of the often-made claim by the former Under-Secretary, who is now Lord Craigton, that the reason why some of the burghs have not built is that their housing needs are satisfied.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member asked why more houses could not be built by the Scottish Special Housing Association. The reason is that the extension of the Association's assistance to any local authority depends on that authority's relative housing and financial need.

Hon. Members: Oh

Mr. Hamilton: Indeed, yes. If the burgh simply cannot build houses, if a penny rate brings in £12—that is the position in Culross—and therefore the local authority cannot house its people, why should not the Scottish Special Housing Association come in to relieve the incredible hardship?

Mr. Galbraith: If tomorrow the hon. Member will read my answer to his supplementary question, he will find the answer to the question which he has just asked.

Mr. Hamilton: In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

High Court Judgment

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the judgment of the High Court of Justiciary, delivered on 3rd December last, in the matter of a contempt of court, restricting

the rights of a person accused of a crime or offence to make inquiries relative to his defence, he will introduce legislation to clarify the law on the subject.

Mr. Maclay: The judgment of 4th December concerning the Scottish Daily Mail, which I assume that the hon. Member has in mind, does not appear to me to limit the rights of the defence in any way.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have not in mind any newspaper, and particularly the one to which he refers? Does he realise that, in his judgment, Lord Clyde has laid it down that all criminal investigations must be carried out exclusively by the criminal authorities, and that the facts discovered are not to be made public until the ultimate trial takes place? While I agree that certain Press organs have brought this judgment on their own heads and may well deserve it, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it has much wider implications, and that, apart from the Press altogether, it may limit the rights of the defence when the trial takes place? That is the point to which I should like the Secretary of State to address himself.

Mr. Maclay: I should be very glad to send the hon. Gentleman a full copy of the judgment, and I believe that, if he reads it carefully, he will realise that the judgment does not bear the implications which he suggests. I think that it is a very important matter. The judgment actually says
All these investigations … and all these interrogations of possible witnesses should be done by the criminal authorities, and not by the Press. … Any independent interviewing of possible witnesses by representatives of the Press while the investigations by the Crown Authorities are in progress constitutes an interference with the Authorities' public duty. …
Those are the full words.

Farms (Electricity Supply)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent he is satisfied with the recent progress of the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board in supplying electricity to farms in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Having regard to the difficulties involved, my right hon. Friend considers that, taking the area as a whole, progress so far is satisfactory.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister endorse the glowing tribute to nationalisation paid by Lord Strathclyde, former President of the South Ayrshire Unionist Association, and will he take steps to see that it has a much wider circulation amongst Unionist Associations?

Mr. Macpherson: I certainly endorse the fact that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, which is not exactly a nationalised board—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because it is for a part of the country only—has done a most admirable piece of work.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many additional farmers in South-West Scotland have received electricity supplies since 1946.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Information as to the Board's progress in supplying electricity to farms up to 31st December, 1958, is contained in its Annual Report for 1958. The Board will, I am sure, be glad to give the hon. Member more up-to-date information if he requires it.

Mr. Hughes: Why is the hon. Gentleman so shy about giving this information? Does he not realise that the overwhelming majority of farmers in South-West Scotland now have a supply of electric light and power, due to the advancement of public ownership on the electricity front?

Mr. Macpherson: I am well aware of the great progress that has been made by the South of Scotland Electricity Board, under the chairmanship of Sir John Pickles, who started in my own constituency, and did a very good job of work there. I am not shy about this, but would only say that it seems more appropriate that requests for information about the day-to-day activities of the Board should be addressed directly to the Board itself.

Farm Roads

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what grants are available for improving farm roads in hill and upland areas.

Mr. Leburn: Grants at the rate of 50 per cent. of approved costs are available, where road works form part of a comprehensive scheme of improvements under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts and at the rate of 33⅓ per cent. of approved costs under the Farm Improvement Scheme. In addition county councils may obtain grants in certain cases up to 85 per cent. of the cost in the Crofting Counties under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, and elsewhere under the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955.

Mr. Brewis: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that it is quite a serious matter to keep up what may often be miles of roads in upland areas? Will he see that grants can be made under the Livestock and Hill Farming Acts, where it is not necessary to have a comprehensive scheme?

Mr. Leburn: I shall be glad to consider this, but we must remember that costs must not be unreasonably high in relation to the benefit to agriculture.

Garrick Hospital, Stranraer

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for increasing the number of beds for medical and surgical cases at the Garrick Hospital, Stranraer.

Mr. Galbraith: The Western Regional Hospital Board appreciates the present difficulties and expects to receive proposals from the board of management in the near future for the provision of additional beds.

Mr. Brewis: Would my hon. Friend keep in mind the fact that this hospital serves a very large area indeed, and that the provision of beds is a matter of great importance for the people living in the district?

Mr. Galbraith: That is recognised by the regional hospital board.

River Forth (Tidal Waters)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the commissioner's report on the inquiry into the tidal waters of the River Forth.

Mr. Galbraith: The Commissioner has informed my right hon. Friend that he hopes to let him have his report fairly soon.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this public inquiry was started last February and was completed in May of this year? Will he give an assurance that once his Department receives the report, it will deal with it expeditiously, because a very large part of the tidal waters are becoming increasingly polluted?

Mr. Galbraith: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is naturally interested in seeing that the water is kept as clean as possible, but I am sure that he will appreciate that this is a complicated matter, full of technical issues and on a very complicated and difficult subject. I undertake that when the report is received, there will be no delay in the Scottish Office.

Rating Valuation

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional valuation accrued to Scottish rating authorities in the years 1957–58 and 1958–59 as a result of the supplementary valuation rolls introduced in those years.

Mr. Galbraith: In 1958–59, £773,179. I have no corresponding information for 1957–58.

Mr. Gourlay: As these figures for the years quoted represent a considerable rate revenue, and as the Secretary of State requested the Scottish authorities to forgo the publication of a supplementary roll in the year 1960–61, will the Joint Under-Secretary give an assurance that his Department will look into the question of providing local authorities with compensation if they accede to his request?

Mr. Galbraith: This is not so much a request as a suggestion. The matter is left entirely at the discretion of the local authorities.

Hire Purchase

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the present difficulty of ascertaining whether persons entering upon hire-purchase negotiations are bona fide purchasers, whether he will introduce legislation to clarify the situation.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend has had no representations from hire-purchase firms about difficulty in ascertaining whether persons entering on hire-purchase negotiations with them are bona fide purchasers. If the hon. Member has in mind the sale of goods on which hire-purchase instalments are outstanding, it is for the buyer to satisfy himself that the vendor has title to sell, and my right hon. Friend does not see how the buyer could be helped by legislation, although he would be very glad to consider any suggestion that the hon. Member cares to make.

Mr. MacPherson: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, while the great mass of hire-purchase transactions take place on a perfectly bona fide basis, it is just too easy for a purchaser, or for a dealer for that matter, to carry out crooked practices? In view of the fact that my information, from responsible professional sources in my constituency, is to the effect that frauds of this kind are quite frequent, and involve considerable sums of money in regard to motor car purchases, will the hon. Gentleman take the initiative in making inquiries instead of waiting for complaints to be received by him? Will he ask the firms concerned or the legal profession what information they have?

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Member has done a public service in bringing this matter to our attention, and I will certainly consider most carefully what he said. I do not think that he expects me to give a firm answer now.

Mr. Lawson: In view of the fact that a large number of what are purported to be hire-purchase agreements, or deals, are carried out under what is called a personal credit scheme, and in view of the fact that there is some doubt whether this personal credit scheme is legal or illegal, will the Minister take steps to see that no one is penalised at this time for having carried out deals under the personal credit scheme? May we be assured that until the legality of this scheme is settled, no one will be penalised?

Mr. Macpherson: That is an entirely different question. Personal credit schemes are not hire-purchase schemes.

Revaluation

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the progress of revaluation under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1956; and if he will give an assurance that revaluation will be introduced in 1961.

Mr. Galbraith: The Answer to both parts of the Question is, "Yes, Sir".

Bellshill Hospital (Maternity Beds)

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that the increase in the number of maternity beds at Bellshill Hospital meets the urgent needs of the new town of East Kilbride for maternity provision near at hand and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Galbraith: The new unit at Bells-hill will go a very long way towards meeting the reasonable needs of the area, including East Kilbride, which it is designed to serve.

Mrs. Hart: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that it takes at least three hours for people to travel from East Kilbride to Bellshill Hospital, to visit patients there, and to get back again? Is he also aware that the Hairmyres hospital, which is the local hospital, has been willing to have a maternity unit? Is he aware that East Kilbride has the highest birth rate in Scotland and more perambulators to the square mile than anywhere else? Will he reconsider this matter?

Mr. Galbraith: I understand that the regional hospital board is looking into the possibility of Hairmyres hospital, but I am advised that on the whole it is undesirable to plan maternity services as small units.

Miss Herbison: Is not the Minister aware from the number of Questions which have been asked about hospital accommodation that there is very serious concern about it in Scotland? What does he mean by "the reasonable needs" of Lanarkshire? Does that mean 70 per cent. of the cases? Will he not give some consideration to the provision in Hairmyres hospital of this very necessary service for a growing place such as East Kilbride, where there are so many young couples?

Mr. Gailbraith: Not quite 70 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Hart.

Mrs. Hart: Will the Under-Secretary of State answer my hon. Friend's question?

Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Lady to ask Question No. 30.

Farmers, Lanark (Grants)

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers in the Parliamentary constituency of Lanark have applied for, and received, grants under the provisions of the Small Farmers Act; and what has been the total expenditure as a result.

Mr. Leburn: None of the seven small farmers in the Parliamentary constituency of Lanark who have had farm business plans approved under the provisions of the Small Farmers (Scotland) Scheme, 1959, has so far applied for an instalment of grant.

Mrs. Hart: Will the Under-Secretary of State undertake to give further publicity to the facilities which are available so that his Government can fulfil the promise which they have made to give assistance to this body of farmers?

Mr. Leburn: I think that agriculture generally and small farmers in particular well know of the existence of this Scheme.

Electricity (Consumers' Representations)

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations from consumers were received by the Electricity Consultative Council for the South of Scotland District in the year ended 31st December, 1958.

Mr. N. Macpherson: This is a matter for the Consultative Council which will, I am sure, be glad to supply the information to the hon. Member on request.

Mr. Millan: Since the Secretary of State for Scotland appoints the members of the Consultative Council, has he not some responsibility for it? Does he not agree that the vast majority of electricity consumers in the South of Scotland are unaware of the existence and work of this body? Will he consult the South of Scotland Electricity Board with a view to publicising its work?

Mr. Macpherson: Considerable attention has been devoted to this question, but I should explain to the hon. Member that the Council, which is appointed by my right hon. Friend, cannot be compelled to supply him with this information, although it would readily do so if asked. As this is a matter which falls within the Council's responsibility, I suggest that it is more appropriate for the hon. Member to communicate with the Council direct.

Technical College, Greenock

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the outcome of his recent talks with the First Lord of the Admiralty concerning a site for the proposed technical college at Greenock.

Mr. N. Macpherson: As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member in his letter of 10th December, my noble Friend has agreed that, subject to the settlement of certain financial and legal details, just over 3½ acres of land adjacent to the small site already available should be transferred to Renfrew-shire Education Authority as soon as practicable.

Dr. Mabon: Is the hon. Member aware that it fortifies back benchers considerably when they receive letters answering Questions which they have tabled the day before? In the discussions, has the Secretary of State sought and received an assurance that the officers of Renfrewshire Education Committee will have every co-operation and access to the boom defence depôt in the stage of planning and design of the college? Can we reasonably expect that in 1962, when this is completed, the sanction of the Scottish Education Department will be secured for this much-needed project?

Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend thought it courteous to inform the hon. Member as soon as possible of the decision which had been reached. The second part of the supplementary question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. On the third part of the supplementary question, I am sure that there will be no unreasonable delay in giving approval.

Municipal Houses, Glasgow

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many municipal houses were built in Glasgow in 1954; and how many will be completed in 1959.

Mr. Galbraith: Glasgow Corporation built 6,148 houses in 1954 and expects to complete about 2,450 in 1959. A further 1,500 houses will have become available in 1959 for Glasgow families in new towns and overspill reception areas.

Mr. McInnes: Is the hon. Member aware that Glasgow has a waiting list of 130,000 applicants? This reveals a reduction of over 60 per cent. The reduction may be due to the shortage of sites, about which the Corporation advised the right hon. Gentleman not less than six years ago. What does he intend to do about the problem?

Mr. Galbraith: We intend to carry on with our existing programme.

Western Regional Hospital Board (Consultants)

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of consultants employed in the Western Regional Hospital Board area at the end of 1950, 1955 and 1958, respectively, including consultants employed in teaching hospitals.

Mr. Galbraith: The number of consultants employed by the Western Regional Hospital Board on these three dates were, respectively, 365, 454 and 478.

Mr. McInnes: Can the Minister give any reason for the increase?

Mr. Galbraith: It is for the Board to preserve a proper balance between consultants of various kinds.

Local Authority Houses (Annual Charges)

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, for purposes of comparison, he will state the total annual charges debited to the housing revenue account of a local authority in respect of a four-apartment house built and provided with money borrowed from


the Public Works Loan Board for sixty years as at August. 1951, and August, 1959.

Mr. Galbraith: The total annual charges based on the average cost of construction, including land, services and fees, of a four-apartment house as at August, 1951, and August, 1959, are £54 19s. 2d. and £111 17s. 10d.

Mr. McInnes: These are very illuminating figures. Is the hon. Member a ware that the cost over sixty years has risen from £3,200 to £7,600? Is not he ashamed of these figures? Do not they indicate that the Government's policy is compelling local authorities to stop house building in Scotland?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member has been plugging away at this point for some time.

Mr. Manuel: No wonder.

Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that it is profitable to discuss the Government's policy for financing local authority house building by means of Question and Answer.

Mr. McInnes: On a point of order. As the hon. Gentleman desires to debate this subject, and because of the unsatisfactory reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Department of Agriculture (Smithfield Show)

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to see that the Department of Agriculture for Scotland is represented on a display stand at future Smithfield shows.

Mr. Leburn: My right hon. Friend will be happy to keep my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind when he is considering the Department's future publicity programme.

Land (Flooding)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total acreage in Scotland rendered unfit for arable use by reason of recurrent flooding.

Mr. Leburn: No precise information is available, but in its Report in 1950 the Duncan Committee estimated that about 200,000 acres of arable land were

adversely affected in varying degrees by inadequate arterial drainage.

Mr. Manuel: Does not the Under-Secretary agree that this is a deplorable loss to agricultural resources? Further, does he agree that it is very necessary that we should have adequate land drainage so that we can boost agricultural production in Scotland and make things much better for people living in the rural areas?

Mr. Leburn: I agree that it would be highly desirable, but at the same time I think that we had better see how the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1958, gets on.

Mr. Manuel: It is not getting on at all—[Interruption.]

School Dental Service, Ayrshire

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state in respect of Ayrshire how many children did not receive any school dental examination in 1958.

Mr. Galbraith: In the school year 1957–58, 39,585 school children in Ayrshire did not receive a school dental examination.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman has just told us amid the din—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The futility of asking Questions is increased if there is so much noise that the Answer cannot be heard.

Mr. Manuel: Owing to the din and interruptions from the other side, Mr. Speaker, may I have the Answer again so that I can put my supplementary question?

Mr. Galbraith: In the school year 1957–58, 39,585 school children in Ayrshire did not receive a school dental examination.

Mr. Manuel: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a deplorable situation when over 39,000 children in one county have had no dental service from the school dental service? What positive steps will he take to augment the qualified school dental service?

Mr. Galbraith: Recruitment to the school dental service is primarily a matter for local education authorities;


but my right hon. Friend, as he indicated to the hon. Gentleman last week, is doing what he can to encourage more dentists to join the service.

Roads (Maintenance and Improvement)

Mr. W. Baxter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount of grant issued to the county councils of Scotland for the maintenance and improvement of classified roads in Scotland for the financial years 1959–60 and 1958–59.

Mr. N. Macpherson: In 1958–59 my right hon. Friend authorised grants to county highway authorities of £2,745,000 for maintenance and minor improvement and £1,375,000 for major improvements. He estimates that the comparable figures for 1959–60 will be £2,771,000 and £1,358,000 respectively.

Mr. Baxter: It was a little difficult to follow the Under-Secretary. I will take note of what he said and probably table another Question.

Mr. W. Baxter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount of grants issued to Scottish local authorities for the maintenance and minor improvements of classified roads in 1946–47; and the average increase per year up to 1959–60.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The amount authorised in 1946–47 was £1,681,000. Since 1951–52, when that figure was first exceeded, the average increase per year has been 7·2 per cent. of that figure. This is equivalent to an average increase of 5·7 per cent. for each year relative to the previous one.

Derelict Sites (Clearance)

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many derelict sites were cleared by Scottish local authorities between 1955 and 1958 inclusive; and what was the total sum paid in Government grant towards the cost of these clearances.

Mr. Galbraith: Information about clearance work carried out is not available. No specific grant for this purpose was payable in these years.

Industry, Ayrshire

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to arrest the industrial decline in Ayrshire.

Mr. N. Macpherson: In general, the Local Employment Bill is designed to strengthen the Government's powers to deal with areas of high and persistent unemployment in Scotland and elsewhere. My right hon. Friend is considering in consultation with his colleagues the particular points raised by the deputation from Ayrshire which was accompanied by the hon. Member and which my right hon. Friend received along with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power on 28th November.

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the deputation that saw his right hon. Friend and another Minister was frankly disappointed with the interview? Is he further aware that the position in the area is bad and that it is getting worse? We are waiting for some indication that the Government are even aware of the gravity of the position.

Mr. Macpherson: The Government are well aware that there are pockets of unemployment, and that is the reason for the Local Employment Bill. The hon. Gentleman is taking altogether too gloomy a view when one takes into account what is happening at Irvine at present.

Mr. Ross: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that it is a very large pocket which holds 7,000 unemployed? The position has been getting worse from month to month, and there is no evidence of the Government overtaking the position.

Mr. Macpherson: That is precisely why we are proceeding with the Local Employment Bill as fast as possible.

Pier, Isle of Lewis

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent he is prepared to contribute towards the cost of extending the pier at Portnaguran, Isle of Lewis.

Mr. Leburn: My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider any proposals Ross and Cromarty County Council as the responsible harbour authority may put


forward for improving facilities at Portnaguran Pier by extending the pier or otherwise, and he cannot at this stage say what assistance may be required or approved. Meanwhile, he has offered to consider making the Council a grant of 75 per cent. of the cost of preliminary investigations, and he awaits the Council's reply.

Mr. MacMillan: May I thank the Under-Secretary for that very helpful reply?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING CONDITIONS

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. FRANK ALLAUN: To ask the Prime Minister if he will undertake a personal tour of some of the industrial towns and cities to see the bad housing conditions in which millions of British families live.

Mr. Lindsay: On a point of order. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this Question is out of order, should not have been accepted by the Table and should not be called. The Question contains the statement that millions of British families are living in bad housing conditions.

Mr. Manuel: So they are.

Mr. Lindsay: I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to page 358 of Erskine May, under the heading, "Examples of inadmissible questions":
In the light of these general rules the following types of question have been ruled out of order:
(1) Questions … containing arguments, expressions of opinion, inferences, or imputations.
I submit to you, respectfully, that this Question contains the expression of opinion that millions of British families are living in bad housing conditions, which is an argument which certainly cannot be acccepted on this side of the House and which contains an imputation against Government policy which is not called for. I submit to you, Sir, that the Question is out of order and should not be accepted by you.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I regret that I could not hear him when he wanted to say something

to me in the Chair just now owing to being occupied on other matters. I hold that the Question is in order, on the basis that the assertion there made is one of fact and not of opinion. It is an assertion of fact for which the hon. Member who puts the Question on the Order Paper accepts responsibility.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if he will undertake a personal tour of some of the industrial towns and cities to see the bad housing conditions in which millions of British families live.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I am glad to say that housing conditions in industrial areas have been materially improved in the last eight years. I am of course aware that a great deal still remains to be done.
As the hon. Member knows, I have during my Premiership visited a large number of industrial towns and cities in this country, and I hope to continue this practice.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Stonehouse.

Mr. Allaun: Would not such a visit show that thousands of families have been waiting fourteen years and that in 1959 six million households are without a bath? Does the Prime Minister realise that most people cannot afford to buy their own house, that their hopes are receding because the councils have been forced to halve their programmes since 1954 by the Government's high interest rates, and that cheap housing loans are vital?

The Prime Minister: There are a large number of questions of fact in that supplementary question which I cannot accept. We can debate these matters, and we frequently do. Some years ago I used to take part in those debates. It is surely common knowledge that, by an enormous national effort, a very great deal has been done in the housing sphere, probably greater than in any country in the world. We have a right to be proud of that. There are arguments as to what would be the best method of concentrating our efforts now. I think that concentration on the slum clearance programme is the right method. There have been only two serious slum clearance programmes in our history, both of them under Conservative Governments.

Mr. Manuel: Is not the Prime Minister aware that housing authorities everywhere are having to cut their programmes appreciably because of high interest charges and subsidy reduction? If he really wants to make a step forward in slum clearance he will need to get interest charges reduced and the subsidy restored.

The Prime Minister: Slum clearance programmes are, of course, covered by special subsidies for that purpose.

Mr. Popplewell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's statement that only two really effective slum clearance drives have been conducted, and that those have been conducted by Conservative Government, would not the Prime Minister correct that statement and draw attention to Arthur Greenwood's Act, which was the finest slum clearance Act of any in prewar days?

The Prime Minister: But it did not last long enough to be of any success. However, I have made a statement of fact from which the hon. Member must make his own deductions.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you allow the Prime Minister to answer Question No. 49 in view of the fact that a great trade union has today announced that it will not co-operate with the T.U.C. in dealing with this problem of wild-cat strikes?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not draw attention to Questions that are, prima facie, not to be answered. I have received no request from the Prime Minister to answer that Question.

Mr. Stonehouse: On a point of order.

Sir T. Moore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will observe that there are 125 Questions on the Order Paper and, as you know, we have not dealt with more than one-third of those. Would it be possible for you to curtail supplementary questions a little, and so enable the House to have the benefit of the Prime Minister's Answers to the Questions put to him?

Mr. Speaker: In answer to the hon. Baronet, it is apt to be time wasting if one pulls up hon. Members for long supplementary questions all the time. I would prefer to renew my request to the House to keep its own watch on supplementary questions—[An HON. MEMBER: "And answers."]— and answers—and, perhaps, to bear in mind that some hon. Members may find it easier than others to ask short supplementary questions. I think that the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) was rising to a point or order?

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As you called my name earlier, and as this is the last opportunity that the Prime Minister will have to answer Questions before his coming journey, may I ask Question No. 48?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid not. The fact is, as was obvious, that I called the hon. Member's name in error because I thought that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) was not rising, but he was, in fact, engaged in the physical act of rising and, when I saw that, I corrected myself.

Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although, as you have already told us, you have not received any submission from the Prime Minister that he wishes to answer orally Questions that might not be reached, as Question No. 48 is particularly important and one which the right hon. Gentleman himself would clearly wish to answer, may I ask whether you would now accept a submission from the Prime Minister, if he were to make it on the spot?

Mr. Speaker: No. I prefer to adhere to the practice of my predecessors, which is neither directly nor indirectly to intervene in the matter, aye or no, whether a Minister desires to answer any given Question.

Sir L. Ropner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have referred to the practice of your predecessors. I do not think that hon. and right hon. Members on either side of the House are more or less inquisitive than they were a number of years ago, or that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are less or more inclined to ask supplementary questions, or that those questions are longer or shorter than they were


some years ago. It will be within your recollection—it is certainly within mine—that, invariably, we passed over no fewer than a hundred Questions at Question Time. I submit, with full respect to you, Sir, that the problem of getting on with the larger number of Questions really rests in your hands, in calling fewer supplementary questions, rather than in the hands of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Speaker: It may. Questions become extremely bald if they consist of one question and one answer. I have no doubt that I err in my discretion in the matter. I will endeavour constantly to do better.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a statement about a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting.
I have been in communication with the Prime Ministers of the other Commonwealth countries and we have now arranged to hold a meeting in London, beginning on 3rd May, 1960. I feel sure that the House will join with me in welcoming this event, to which we all attach the greatest importance.

Mr. Gaitskell: We welcome the Prime Minister's statement about the forthcoming conference. May I ask whether he expects that this will take place before or after the summit meeting?

The Prime Minister: I think that I had better not hazard any more forecasts.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I try another one? May I ask whether the Prime Minister of the Federation of Central Africa will be present at this conference?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, by a precedent that goes back for many years.

Mr. Gaitskell: In that case, may I ask whether the Prime Minister of the Federation of the West Indies will be present—and the Prime Minister of the Federation of Nigeria?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, that is not intended.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why a distinction is drawn between the Federation of Central Africa, over parts of whose territories we still exercise control, as contrasted with the Federation of the West Indies?

The Prime Minister: The Federation of the West Indies is not yet really fully established. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we hope that the Nigerian one will be established during the course of the coming year. But, of course, we are not the arbiters in this. This precedent has been accepted in the case of the Federation of Central Africa and, before that, of Southern Rhodesia. I am in the hands of what is the general wish of the Prime Ministers, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press me further, because that is a matter that they alone can settle.

Mr. Gaitskell: A precedent has to be started by someone. Presumably, the precedent of inviting the Prime Minister of the Federation of Central Africa was started a year or two ago. Is it not possible to start a similar precedent in the case of the West Indies?

The Prime Minister: I think that that will probably be better left for discussion when we meet.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is Cyprus to be represented at this conference?

The Prime Minister: Cyprus is, at present. a British Colony. Legislation will. I hope, be introduced early next year to carry out the agreements, but it is not yet quite clear exactly what form that legislation will take. Therefore, I cannot answer that question until we know, after the establishment of the new Cypriot Government, precisely what relations, if any, they wish, or are able, to maintain with the Commonwealth.

Mr. Wade: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of discussing with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers the prospect of increasing trade between the Commonwealth and both Britain and European countries; and, in particular, ways and means whereby Britain and the Commonwealth might help to save Europe from being divided into two separate economic blocs—the Common Market and the Outer Seven?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any discourtesy if I remind him that it has always been the practice, ever since these meetings have been held, that they should be private and confidential and that an agenda should not be published beforehand. Any Prime Minister raises any subject he wishes at either the formal or the informal meetings. I do, of course, take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the fact that Nigeria will become independent within four months of the holding of the conference, and that the elections have already taken place for the Parliament which will inaugurate that independence, will the Prime Minister consult with the other Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth about whether Nigeria should have an observer representative in a capacity similar to that from Central Africa?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are many processes on both sides—requests from the Nigerian Government, decisions of the new Government and Parliament, and corresponding replies from the other Commonwealth Governments—to be gone through. I will certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Stonehouse: In view of the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), will he put on the agenda the future of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland so that, in the private and confidential discussions which take place, he will have the opportunity of receiving the advice of the other Commonwealth Governments?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman did not quite understand what I said. Perhaps I was not clear enough in my reply. I thought I had made it clear that it was not the practice to reveal the agenda, but it was, of course, within the right of any Prime Minister to raise any question he wished.

Mr. Driberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify a little his reply about Cyprus? Does he expect that the necessary legislation will pass through both Houses of Parliament between the end

of the Christmas Recess and the date of the transfer of power, which has already been announced for February?

The Prime Minister: I do not want to be drawn into the details of these negotiations, which are still going on. We now have the President and the Vice-President, and then, I think, there has to be an election in Cyprus to elect a Parliamentary Assembly, and then the negotiations will have to be concluded, and a Bill introduced here. There is quite a lot to be done before any question such as the one which the hon. Gentleman raised becomes a real one.

Mr. Driberg: I think that the Prime Minister misunderstood what I said. The date of the transfer of power has already been announced for February.

The Prime Minister: Yes. Sir; that is on the assumption that all the negotiations are satisfactorily concluded. I hope that that will be so.
I am afraid that Parliament may be asked—I should not say I am afraid, because I hope that it will all go absolutely smoothly, but I am afraid in the sense that it will be rather a burden on Parliament to pass this legislation rather rapidly in order to conform with the plan which we all hope will be carried out. I recognise, of course, that it is asking both Houses of Parliament to take rather rapid decisions, but I hope that the whole House will feel that they will be justified if all these matters, as we believe, reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Gaitskell: Are we to understand from that answer that the question whether or not a Cypriot representative will be present at the conference is left open for the time being, dependent on these other negotiations?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, because that, again, would be a question of what, if any, was the relationship of Cyprus with the Commonwealth, whether it was full membership, or whether it was some other form of relationship; and all that must be decided by all the Prime Ministers, not the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. They attach very great importance to these matters. We have been in close communication with them on it, but no decisions could be taken without their full approval and discussion.

Mr. Gaitskell: Surely, these consultations take place not only at No. 10, Downing Street, but by telegram beforehand. Is it not possible for those consultations to take place accordingly, with a view to Cyprus being represented?

The Prime Minister: The first thing is that consultations will take place about what, if any, should be the precise relationship of Cyprus, the new Republic of Cyprus, with the Commonwealth, should the Assembly and Government of Cyprus make that request. But they have to be constituted and created and have an individual life before such a request can be made. It is, therefore, quite a complicated affair and not one which should be settled just "off the cuff". All these procedures, if we mean anything at all by the independence of Cyprus, must go through the proper constitutional procedure of their Assembly, which does not yet exist.

BILL PRESENTED

PAYMENT OF WAGES

Bill to remove certain restrictions imposed by the Truck Acts, 1831 to 1940, and other enactments, with respect to the payment of wages; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Heath; supported by Mr. Maudling, the Attorney-General, Mr. P. J. M. Thomas, and Mr. Barber; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings of the Committee on Air Corporations [Money] and on the Report from the Committee of Supply of 7th December exempted, at this day's sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE

3.45 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase benefits under the National Insurance Acts, 1946 to 1959.
The Bill which I hope the House will give me leave to introduce intimately affects the lives of over 6 million people. I hope that it will not be made a party political issue. I will deal straight away with the party political point and then go on to explain what my proposed Bill is designed to achieve.
First, I claim that the biggest single increase in the National Insurance pension was made by a Labour Government in 1948, and, at present, I am prepared quite readily to admit that the pensioner is 4s. to 5s. a week better off than he was in 1948. But is this enough? I gave notice of my intention to introduce the Bill a fortnight ago in the hope that, in the intervening 14 days, the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance might himself come to the House with proposals for increasing National Insurance benefits. That has not happened. Therefore, I must ask the House to give me leave to introduce my Bill.
On 6th November, 1957, just over two years ago, the Minister last came to the House with proposals to increase National Insurance benefits. Since then, much has happened. We know, for example, that in October, 1957, the average wages of earnings of workers in manufacturing and certain other industries were £10 12s. 5d. a week. In April, 1959, about ten months ago, according to the latest figures available, that average had increased to £11 2s. 6d. The majority of people, apart from pensioners, have had an increase in wages or income of over 10s. a week since the National Insurance benefits were last adjusted. This makes it imperative that we should now take action to allow people on National Insurance benefits of one kind or another to catch up with the increase in wages which has occurred for the wage earning section of the population.
Since 1947, when the pension of 26s. a week was first introduced, earnings


have increased by 115 per cent., yet National Insurance benefits have increased by only 92 per cent. There should be an increase of 6s. a week in the basic National Insurance benefit to ensure that National Insurance beneficiaries receive an increase in their rates corresponding with the increase which wage earners have received since the pension was introduced. That would merely put the National Insurance beneficiary on the same sort of footing as the wage earner.
Our present social security scheme is, to a large extent, based on the Report of Sir William Beveridge, as he then was, on Social Insurance and Allied Services. In paragraph 27, he said that
… determination of what is required for reasonable human subsistence is to some extent a matter of judgment
We can, I think, all agree with that. He went on to say that
estimates on this point change with time, and generally, in a progressive community, change upwards.
I submit that we have not sufficiently revised upwards the general level of subsistence on which National Insurance beneficiaries should live in accordance with the general increase in the standard of living which has occurred since 1942, when Sir William Beveridge made his proposals.
Sir William proposed a basic pension of 24s. a week. The National Insurance Act, 1946. fixed the basic benefit at 26s. a week, which, in real terms, was about 6d. a week more than the original proposal for 24s. We have now a basic benefit of 50s. which, again, in real terms, is about 5s. a week more than Sir William Beveridge proposed. I submit that to be thinking now, in 1959, seventeen years after the Beveridge Report, that we can afford to give only 5s. a week more to National Insurance beneficiaries than the level of subsistence thought of in the middle of the most devasting war we have ever experienced shows that we have reached a quite fantastic situation. Surely, our standard of life, our economy and our financial position have improved sufficiently since 1942 to enable us to give to National Insurance beneficiaries a little more than 5s. a week on top of what was thought possible in the dark days of war.
My proposed Bill will provide for an increase of 10s. a week in the basic rate of National Insurance benefit for pensioners, the unemployed, the sick and one or two other classes. I understand—and I must inform the House of this—from the statement made by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in Standing Committee A, on 5th March this year, that such an increase would cost £161 million per year.
I would also propose, in my Bill, to make certain minor increases in children's and other allowances under the National Insurance scheme. I understand that the actual total expenditure would be about £200 million per year. My Bill would propose, if it is necessary to propose, that the expenditure should, of course, be met from the National Insurance Fund and the National Insurance Reserve Fund, which are the sources from which the pension is met at present.
Hon. Members would probably like to know the amount of money now available in these funds. In the National Insurance Fund there is £354 million and in the National Insurance Reserve Fund, £878 million. Those figures are the actual price at which the assets held by these funds could be realised in the present-day market because most of the money is in Government securities of one kind or another. The actual cost of these securities in the Reserve Fund was £1,200 million, but, because of the Government's financial policy during the last few years, the value of these stocks on the market has dropped so considerably that the fund stands to lose about £100 million. Nevertheless, there is a total in those two funds at the moment of £1,232 million, which is laid down quite clearly in the accounts, and which is sufficient to meet the expenditure involved in my Bill for several years to come.
I realise that in altering National Insurance benefits it is advisable to adjust other benefits, such as National Assistance, industrial injuries and war pensions, but my Bill will deal only with National Insurance benefits. Unfortunately, as a private Member it is not possible for me to take action of this nature in relation to National Assistance and war pensions. If the Government are prepared to find time for my Bill to go forward, I should be only too pleased


at a later date to endeavour to do something for the industrial injuries pensioner, and I hope that the Government will deal with National Assistance and war pensions.
I do not think that 10s. a week is enough, but it is the best that I can put forward at the moment as a private Member in a proposal to the House, knowing that there is money to meet it. If, before my Bill should receive a Second Reading in the House, the Government themselves are prepared to bring forward their own proposals to deal with this matter, I shall be only too happy to withdraw my Bill in favour of any such Government Bill.
I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill this afternoon and that it will not be blocked in the many ways possible for such Bills to be blocked, so that we can really do something at this stage to try to give the pensioner, the sick, the unemployed and other National Insurance beneficiaries the standard of living to which they are entitled in a country where, we are told, they have never had it so good.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I ask the House to reject the Motion which has been put forward with his customary fluency and knowledge of the subject by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds).
There is one thing which he did not mention in his survey of how the Government had acted towards the old and the infirm. He did not mention, for example, the increase in the National Assistance rates which my right hon. Friend initiated as long ago as last July, with the result that when the winter began old-age pensioners at the bottom end of the income scale had already a standard of living higher than ever before in the history of this country.
In addition to the basic National Insurance rate of 85s. a week, for a married couple, it is commonly known that the couple will also get a rent and rates allowance. This, according to the 1958 Report of the National Assistance Board, averaged no less than 18s. 6d. per household over the country. Since the National Insurance pension was last raised, two years ago, the cost of living has been virtually steady. Indeed, it is

worth noting that the increase in National Assistance which my right hon. Friend initiated last July was the first increase since the war in which National Assistance was raised without the cost of living having risen. We were able to make that increase because the industrial recovery of the country was already far advanced.
I ask the House to reject the Motion, because I do not believe that our industrial recovery has yet taken place to a sufficient extent to have created the necessary wealth to enable an increase in pensions to be made. The hon. Member proposes an increase of 10s. a week in the basic retirement pension for a single person. I notice that he proposes not to increase the rate for a married couple more than the rate for a single person. At the General Election, one thing that the electorate found extraordinarily difficult to understand in the proposals of members of the party opposite was that, unlike any other social students, they believe that two people can live as cheaply as one.
In producing his proposed Bill, the hon. Member had to find the money from somewhere. He evidently did not feel that he could ask the Government for a Money Resolution if his Motion went through, because he proposes to charge the £200 million a year upon the National Insurance Fund, which now stands at a level that would raise just over £1,200 million.
It is worth recalling that we are already running down the National Insurance Fund as a bridging operation before our main superannuation scheme with graded pensions begins. We are running it down at the rate of about £50 million a year. I regard it as rather bad finance and not prudent husbandry to run down the Fund at a rate of £200 million a year over and above the present bridging operation, which entails a reduction of £50 million a year. When we run down the National Insurance Fund, the securities have to be sold in the market. The Government's funding programme thereby becomes more difficult. To that extent, fresh savings are swallowed up and the Government—

Major Sir Frank Markham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we be told whether it is in order


for a private Member to introduce legislation involving enormous charges on thy Exchequer without the House being able to consider a Money Resolution?

Mr. Speaker: The charge is not upon the Exchequer. That is the distinction. The proposed Bill purports to put the charge upon the National Insurance Fund.

Sir F. Markham: Surely, many of the contributions to these sources are borne by the Exchequer.

Mr. Speaker: The proposed Bill is in order, because it does not increase them.

Mr. Freeth: What the proposed Bill does is to make it much harder for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to manage the gilt-edged market. It would undoubtedly have a budgetary effect—[Interruption.] If the Government do not manage the gilt-edged market, they cannot do any funding. Hon. Members opposite should try to learn something about the money market.
In addition, as the hon. Member for Islington, North admitted, we could not give the increases in National Insurance pensions which he proposes without, at the same time, making a proposal to increase National Assistance, war pensions and industrial injuries benefits. Therefore, we would find ourselves in the position that the total amount to be paid out annually, above what is at present paid out, would be not £200 million, but a sum greatly in excess of that figure.
We all know the record of the Socialist Government when in power. From 1946 to 1951 the purchasing power of the pension declined steadily every year. Throughout those five years of Socialism, the pensioner found himself with an equal share in Socialist misery. The record of this Government is one which convinced the electorate, only a month or two ago, that our election pledges were worth believing and that the promises of the party opposite were not worth the paper on which they were written. If the electorate had thought otherwise, hon. Members opposite would today be sitting at your right hand, Mr. Speaker.
Most of the National Insurance benefits are already, in real terms, about 50 per cent. higher than in 1951, when we came into power. It was because of our record that the electorate believed us when we stated:
We pledge ourselves to ensure that pensioners continue to share in the good things which a steadily expanding economy will bring.
That pledge was repeated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as recently as 26th November.
The hon. Member for Islington, North referred to the pensioner's increases in relation to rises in earnings. I presume that when he spoke of the increased purchasing power of the wage earner, he was dealing with industrial earnings and not with industrial wages. If, however, we take the period during which my right hon. Friends have had charge of the economy, from October, 1951, until April, 1959, which is the date of the latest figures I have been able to discover, earnings of men have risen by 58 per cent. and women's earnings by 52 per cent. The single person's pension is up by 67 per cent. and the pension of a married couple is up by 62 per cent.
We are determined to do more, but we cannot distribute wealth until we have first created it, otherwise the result is inflation. The economy is expanding by 7 or 8 per cent. over the level of a year ago. We are now creating the wealth. We have pledged ourselves to distribute it fairly. It would be excessively foolish of us to start to distribute it now before we have created it. That would mean a return to inflation, and inflation is the pensioner's worst enemy.
It is easy to make promises after an election. Indeed, hon. Members opposite seemed to find it fairly easy during the election campaign as well. Under the proposed Bill, they apparently promise to provide immense increases in National Insurance benefits and increases, which, the hon. Member admits, would have to be a concomitant of the Bill, in National Assistance and industrial injuries benefit. At the same time, we have been told by hon. Members opposite that Income Tax would not be increased and Purchase Tax would actually be reduced. It was to the honour of the electorate that they


were not prepared to be taken in by specious promises and bribes of that kind. The fact remains that, in relation to pension promises, the arithmetic of right hon. and hon. Members opposite did not add up during the election and it does not add up now.
Therefore, I ask the House to reject the Motion. If it is given a First Reading and stands upon the Order Paper, it will cruelly delude pensioners into believing that an increase is just around the corner. That an increase will come if our economy continues to expand, we know from the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime

Minister and our election pledge. First, however, we have to create the wealth. Otherwise, if we distribute it before we create it, we merely have to print more, and that is the gateway to inflation. I do not believe that that is a gateway which, for easy political popularity, this House will wish to enter.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 262.

Division No. 22.]
AYES
[4.5 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oswald, Thomas


Albu, Austen
Hannan, William
Owen, Will


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Paget, R. T.



Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Awbery, Stan
Healey, Denis
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pavitt, Laurence


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Beaney, Alan
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Peart, Frederick


Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pentland, Norman


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hilton, A. V.
Popplewell, Ernest


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist'l, S. E.)
Holt, Arthur
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Benson, Sir George
Houghton Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Bevan, Rt. Hn. Aneurin (Ebbw V.)
Howell, Charles A.
Proctor, W. T.


Blackburn, F.
Hoy, James H.
Randall, Harry


Blyton, William
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Redhead, E. C.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hunter, A. E.
Reid, William


Boyden, James
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reynolds, G. W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rhodes, H.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, George
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Callaghan, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Carmichael, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Ross, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Chetwynd, George
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Short, Edward


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Skeffington, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
King, Dr. Horace
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Darling, George
Lawson, George
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lipton, Marcus
Steele, Thomas


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Loughlin, Charles
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Deer, George
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stonehouse, John


Dempsey, James
McCann, John
Stones, William


Donnelly, Desmond
MacColl, James
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Driberg, Tom
McInnes, James
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Mackie, John
Swain, Thomas


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Swingler, Stephen


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sylvester, George


Evans, Albert
Mahon, Simon
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Finch, Harold
Manuel, A. C.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mapp, Charles
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Timmons, John


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Marsh, Richard
Tomney, Frank


Gooch, E. G.
Mason, Roy
Wade, Donald


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mendelson, J. J.
Warbey, William


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, Tudor


Greenwood, Anthony
Monslow, Walter
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Grey, Charles
Moody, A. S.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mulley, Frederick
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold
Willey, Frederick


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, Rev. Ll. (Abertillery)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oram, A. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)




Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Zilliacus, K.


Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Woof, Robert



Winterbottom, R. E.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. C. Pannell and Mr. Prentice.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Godber, J. B.
Maddan, Martin


Aitken, W. T.
Goodhart, Philip
Maginnis, John E.


Allason, James
Goodhew, Victor
Maitand, Cdr. J. W.


Alport, C. J. M.
Gower, Raymond
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Amory, Rt. Hn, D. Heathcoat (Tiv'tn)
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Marlowe, Anthony


Arbuthnot, John
Green, Alan
Marten, Neil


Balniel, Lord
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mathew. Robert (Honiton)


Barlow, Sir John
Grimston, Sir Robert
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Barter, John
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Mawby, Ray


Batsford, Brian
Gurden, Harold
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mills, Stratton


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Berkeley, Humphry
Harrison, Brian (Maydon)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Morgan, William


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Morrison, John


Bishop, F. P.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nabarro, Gerald


Black, Sir Cyril
Hay, John
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Bossom, Clive
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Noble, Michael


Bourne-Arton, A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nugent, Richard


Box, Donald
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. D.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hendry, A. Forbes
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Brains, Bernard
Hiley, Joseph
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Brewis, John
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Page, Graham


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Partridge, E.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Brooman-White, R.
Hocking, Philip N.
Peel, John


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Holland, Philip
Peyton, John


Bryan, Paul
Holland-Martin, Christopher
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bullard, Denys
Hollingworth, John
Pitman, I. J.


Burden, F. A.
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Pitt, Miss Edith


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hopkins, Alan
Pott, Percivall


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hornby, R. P.
Powell, J. Enoch


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chanson, H. P. G.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Prior, J. M. L.


Chataway, Christopher
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Profumo, John


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Ramsden, James


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Rawlinson, Peter


Cleaver, Leonard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cole, Norman
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees, Hugh


Collard, Richard
Jackson, John
Renton, David


Cooke, Robert
James, David
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Robertson, Sir David


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cordle, John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Roots, William


Costain, A. P.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Coulson, J. M.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Critchley, Julian
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Russelle, Ronald


Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kershaw, Anthony
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Cunningham, Knox
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Curran, Charles
Lambton, Viscount
Seymour, Leslie


Dance, James
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sharples, Richard


Deedes, W. F.
Langford-Holt, J.
Skeet, T.H.H.


de Ferranti, Basil
Leather, E. H. C.
Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Leburn, Gilmour
Smithers, Peter


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Doughty, Charles
Legit, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Drayson, G. B.
Lewis, Kenneth(Rutland)
Speir, Rupert


Duncan, Sir James
Lilley, F.J.P.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Duthie, Sir William
Lindsay, Martin
Stevens, Geoffrey


Elliott, R.W.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Stodart, J.A.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Litchfield, Capt. John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Errington, Sir Eric




Farey-Jones, F. W.
Longden, Gilbert
Storey, S.


Farr, John
Loveys, Walter H.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Finlay, Graeme
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McAdden, Stephen
Talbot, John E.


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McLaren, Martin
Teeling, William


Gammans, Lady
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Temple, John M.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Glover, Douglas
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Thomas, Peter


Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)







Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wakefield, Edward(Derbyshire, W.)
Wilson Geoffrey (Truro)


Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wall, Patrick
Wise, Alfred


Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick



Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Watts, James
Woodhouse, C. M.


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Webster, David
Woodnutt, Mark


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Worsley, Marcus


Vane, W. M. F.
Whitelaw, William
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)



Vickers, Miss Joan
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Sir R. Cary and Mr. Freeth

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to increase the borrowing powers of the Air Corporations and so to provide the means of enabling them to secure their full share of the rapidly expanding world air transport industry. This is a general object which I am sure will commend itself to the whole House. I propose to confine myself to explaining the purpose and scope of the Bill. If wider issues are raised in the debate, my right hon. Friend will deal with them, as far as possible, when he winds up.
As the House will recall, the Air Corporations Act, 1956, fixed the limit of the Air Corporations' borrowing powers at £160 million in the case of B.O.A.C. and £60 million in the case of B.E.A. Clause 1 (1) of the Bill proposes that B.O.A.C.'s borrowing limit shall be increased by £20 million, to £180 million, and that of B.E.A. by £35 million, to £95 million. These new limits are expected to cover the Corporations' borrowing requirements over the next four years—that is, up to the end of 1963–64.
It may assist the House if I explain, first, the basis of the present limits and then indicate the changes in the situation which have taken place over the last few years. When the present limits were fixed by the 1956 Act they were intended to cover, in the main, the payments for aircraft which the two Corporations then either had on order or under consideration. In the case of B.O.A.C., these were 33 Britannias, 20 Comets, 10 D.C.7Cs. and 15 Boeing 707s. In addition, it was proposed to acquire 14 Viscounts which were then on order

for equipping the associate and subsidiary companies. Allowance was also made for the purchase of between 20 and 30 jet aircraft of British manufacture. No firm decision was taken then, but the type which was under consideration was the DH118.
On the 1956 estimate, it was envisaged that B.O.A.C.'s net borrowings would reach a peak of just under £160 million in 1960–61. In the event, there have been certain changes in the programme over a period of years. The most important change is that B.O.A.C. has ordered 35 Vickers VC10 jets for delivery from 1963 onwards. Although the total cost of these aircraft will be greater than the amount which was allowed in 1956 for the purchase of the DH118s by about £30 million, provision is not being made in the Bill to cover the full additional cost. That is partly because the whole of this expenditure is not expected to fall within the four-year period, by which time B.O.A.C. expects—or hopes—to be meeting an increasing proportion of its capital expenditure out of internal finance. I shall say a little more on the subject of internal finance later.

Mr. John Rankin: If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot do so now, perhaps his right hon. Friend will refer to this matter. It will be seen from the last page of B.O.A.C.'s report that the contractual commitments, while understandable, show a remarkable increase, particularly with regard to the Vickers VC10, from 1957–58 to the present report. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that we should have the break up of those figures, in view of that very large increase in commitments?

Mr. Rippon: I think that the position is quite clear. In 1956, it was estimated that the total cost of 15 Boeing 707s and DH118s would be £100 million. It is now anticipated that the purchase of the VC10 jets will increase that amount by £30 million.
I am dealing with the situation as it is at present and without going into too much detail about how the estimates have changed over the years. I am dealing only with the amount of money which the Corporations will require to borrow and not the total amount which presumably they will spend on capital expenditure, because the difference will be met from internal finance.

Mr. Rankin: The £89 million?

Mr. Rippon: I will come to that, though I am not sure what £89 million the hon. Member is talking about. The total asked for by B.E.A. is £95 million but so far they only plan to spent £89 million—the rest is headroom.
B.O.A.C., over this period, will have spent considerably more than was expected in 1956 on other items, including buildings, ground equipment, routine aircraft modifications, and on subsidiary companies. Another factor is that B.O.A.C. will have less money than expected from the sale of aircraft. The reason is well known to the House. It is because of the relative collapse of the market for second-hand piston-engined aircraft. The result of all this is that B.O.A.C. may well exceed its present borrowing limit fairly early in 1960–61, instead of, as anticipated, at the end of 1961.
Turning briefly to the position of B.E.A., the Corporation, in 1956, had on order 38 Viscount 800s and 20 Vanguards. It had also an option on a further 19 Viscount 840s. In addition, allowance was made for a few helicopters and what was described as a limited number of jet aircraft for longer routes. On the 1956 estimates. B.E.A.'s net borrowing was expected to reach about £55 million in 1960–61. The Corporation has ordered seven Comet IVBs, of which two have already been delivered, and also 24 DH121s for delivery from 1963 onwards. However, against that increased expenditure on new jet aircraft the Corporation has not taken up an option on the further 19 Viscount 840s. Therefore, the net result is that it expects net borrowings to exceed the present limit of £60 million some time during the summer of 1960 and to reach about £69 million by the end of 1960–61.
So much for the change that has taken place since the present limits were fixed

in 1956. I turn now to the main items which the Corporations will have to pay for by the end of 1963–64, that is, during the four years which the new limits set out in the Bill are intended to cover. B.O.A.C. will be making payment mainly on the VC10s, but it will also have to spend a considerable amount on buildings and premises, on ground equipment and routine aircraft modifications. At the moment, it has in hand plans for work on the Victoria Air Terminal, the central aircrew training establishment at London Airport and the engineering component test house at London Airport. Besides these items, there is the continuous flow of minor work on various premises and installations.
B.E.A. will have to pay over the next three years for their Vanguards, the remainder of the Comet IVBs and the DH121s. There will also be some expenditure on helicopters. Like B.O.A.C., it, too, has regular expenditure on building work, ground equipment and modifications to aircraft—all matters which are the inescapable expenditure of an expanding and developing
business. Thus, the Corporation is extending its engineering base at London Airport and it proposes to undertake further work at the London Air Terminal in Cromwell Road and to provide a training centre for air and ground crews at Heston.
While I feel it right to refer to the building and other work which the Corporations envisage, it should be understood that a very high percentage of expenditure is on aircraft. Over the four years covered by the Bill it will be 90 per cent. for B.O.A.C. and 80 per cent. for B.E.A., and the orders for the aircraft, except for the helicopters, are all firm and have been given ministerial approval.
I think that the House will agree that the cost of these jet aircraft is undoubtedly heavy and their introduction has certainly created difficulties in the way of disposal of surplus second-hand piston-engined aircraft. At the same time, there is every evidence that they are proving highly successful in inducing traffic. We have to face this expenditure because we have to keep abreast of the fundamental changes which are taking place in the pattern of world air traffic. In this as in other fields we have to pioneer or perish.
In considering these costs, the House should appreciate the extent to which the Corporations intend to finance their programmes of capital expenditure out of their own internal resources. Over the years 1960–61–63–64 inclusive, B.O.A.C.'s capital expenditure will be about £83 million, of which £63 million will be found internally, mostly from depreciation provisions. That is the reason for the increase of £20 million in total borrowing powers. On the other hand, B.E.A.'s capital expenditure will be about £62½ million, of which it intends, as far as one can ever forecast these matters, to find £27½ million in the same way.

Mr. George Chetwynd: Have the Corporations been financing themselves hitherto out of their own internal finances?

Mr. Rippon: To quite a considerable extent. It was forecast in 1956 that B O.A.C., over the period, would provide £47 million out of its internal resources, and B.E.A. between £26 and £27 million. In the event, B.O.A.C. has found £6½ million less, primarily because of the position regarding piston-engined aircraft, and B E.A. £5 million less, because there has been no depreciation provision for the 19 Viscount 840s which have not been bought. Therefore, the Corporations have been making a really substantial contribution in that way.
Clause 1 (2) of the Bill is really a consequential provision designed to make clear that Section 1 (2) of the Air Corporations Act, 1956, shall refer to this new limit on B.O.A.C.'s borrowing powers. The House will recall that this provision was inserted in the 1956 Act for the avoidance of doubt and to give B.O.A.C. specific power to borrow from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development or the Export-Import Bank of Washington. In fact, this power has not been used and it seems improbable that it ever will be. At the same time, it seems right that the legal position should be maintained. In any event, the power will not be used without the Government's specific consent.
The Bill does not confer upon the Corporations any absolute power to borrow up to the prescribed limits. Treasury consent is required for all individual borrowing and my right hon. Friend is responsible for advancing

money under Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1956. That is explained in paragraph 3 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill.
By passing the Bill, the House will make proper provision for the expansion of our national air transport industry by ensuring that it is equipped with the most up-to-date aircraft that can operate with speed, comfort, regularity and safety.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd: Before I come to the Bill, I think that my hon. Friends would wish me to make a reference to the fact that our colleague, Frank Beswick, is not with us on this Front Bench today owing to electoral misfortune. We shall miss him very much on this side of the House because for many years, both as a member of the Government and of the Opposition, he has spoken in every major civil aviation debate, and we shall miss his knowledge and long experience of these matters. I am sure that my hon. Friends will join with me in hoping that he will soon be back with us in the House of Commons.
I come now to the points raised by the Parliamentary Secretary, in his clear and detailed explanation of the purposes of the Bill. Coming fresh to his Department, I am sure that he will have been confronted with a mass of aeronautical jargon and what I can only call "initialese", though the hon. Gentleman did not worry us with any reference to that. I wonder, however, in looking at subsection (2) of Clause 1, whether by trying to clarify, confusion has not become more confounded, for this subsection reads:
In subsection (2) of section one of the said Act of 1956 (which confers certain additional borrowing powers on the British Overseas Airways Corporation but provides that nothing in that subsection shall authorise that corporation to borrow in excess of the limit imposed by subsection (1) of the said section twelve as amended by subsection (1) of the said section one), for the reference to subsection (1) of the said section one there shall be substituted a reference to subsection (1) of this section.
What on earth that means I do not know, but I should have thought that the Parliamentary draftsman could have given us something a little more straightforward.
As the Parliamentary Secretary said, the Air Corporations Act, 1956, increased


the borrowing powers of B.O.A.C. from £80 million to £160 million. Now, under this Bill, they are to be increased again to £180 million. The borrowing powers of B.E.A. were increased from £35 million to £60 million and now, under this Bill, they are to be increased to £95 million. Again, instead of covering a period of five years, as the previous figures did, for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman it is now anticipated that these will last for four years.
On this side of the House, we regard the Bill before us today as unavoidable if the Corporations are to expand their business, indeed if they are to survive, because in the business of air transport we cannot relax our efforts. We must go forward or else backward and then, ultimately, out of business. It is the duty of the House, as we see it, to scrutinise carefully the purposes for which the additional loans are to be sought, and the Bill gives us one further opportunity to exercise our Parliamentary control over the accountability of the airline Corporations. We welcome that because we think it is time that we had this debate.
On the amounts mentioned in the Bill, the only question I want to ask is whether these will be sufficient? The Parliamentary Secretary has spoken about the heavy and increasing cost of buying aircraft. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) referred to the accounts of B.O.A.C. I think this point was that these show that the VC10s were to cost £56 million, 1957–58, in 1958–59 the figure was £89·3 million, and the figure given by the Parliamentary Secretary for the final purchase was £95 million. My hon. Friend wanted to know whether that was an increase in the cost per plane or because the contracts let had increased.

Mr. Rippon: The figure now is approximately £90 million for the VC10s. I may have misled the House because the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) referred to a figure of £89 million, whereas I spoke of the position as regards B.E.A., not B.O.A.C., where the total amount asked for is £95 million, but an expenditure of only £89 million is anticipated. So there is that measure of slack in the total borrowing powers. I picked up the wrong figure from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Chetwynd: But it is a fact that the cost per aircraft has increased since the orders were originally placed. This is something which any buyer of aircraft has to face, namely, that from the time the order is placed to the finished article there are natural increases for one reason or another.

Mr. Rankin: The point was that there has been a significant increase between the date of the report which we did not consider last year and the report which we are considering this year, particularly in the case of the VC10. The figure for that aircraft has risen from £56·6 million last year to £89·3 million. That is an enormous increase within one year. I was asking if we could have detailed information of this capital expenditure before the debate concludes.

Mr. Chetwynd: I expect that the Minister will be able to make some reference to that point when he winds up the debate.
The point is: will the Corporations now have enough to see them through the immediate period until 1964? Also, can we have information on whether the figures have been reached in consultation and with the agreement of the Corporations? In other words, do these figures really meet what they have asked for? Whilst on this point, can we have an estimate of the revenue which the Corporations hope this injection of further capital will bring in during the period? In the past, there have been criticisms that the rate of revenue in relation to the rate of capital investment has not been high enough.
Another point is that this seems to be a particularly difficult way for the Corporations to borrow money in order to repay existing loans in some cases. May I put it another way? It may be that B.O.A.C. is having to borrow some of this money not for capital expenditure but to repay previous loans, so could we also have some information on that point?
On this side of the House, we support the main purpose of the Bill. We believe that additional capital is justified on two grounds. First, it is justified to meet the future needs of the Corporations, which have been explained so clearly by the Parliamentary Secretary. Secondly, it is justified because of their


past performance, which proves that they have the capacity to make good use of the money.
If we may look at the future needs of the Corporations for a moment, it is clear that in a rapidly expanding and highly competitive business of international air transport the Corporations must have the most modern and up-to-date aircraft if they are to keep their place amongst the world's leading airlines. World air transport traffic is expanding, it is vital that we should get an increased share of it for this country, and in the main that increased share will be earned by the two major Corporations.
I cannot overstress the intangible asset to the prestige of this country which results from running highly successful air Corporations. It is important to bear in mind that for the Corporations to be a success they must have the right aircraft at the right time. It is clear from the experience of B.O.A.C., particularly with the Britannia and the failure of the Comet I, that the fact that they had not got those aircraft when they wanted them has had a serious effect upon their economy during the last few years. But it seems to me that the pattern of aviation has been put right now and that B.O.A.C. are now well placed to move forward.
I understand that the Boeing 707 will be coming into service very soon. Over what period is it expected that the 15 Boeing 707s will be in operation and what will be the final cost? Can we have more information about the 35 VC1Os which are also coming into service later? I believe that the original cost was about £1 million each and I have now seen it estimated that the final cost will be £60 million. Can we have some enlightenment on that figure?
B.E.A. has been fortunate, by good management and by looking ahead, to base its requirements for the last few years on the Viscount. As we all know, the Viscount has had a tremendous success not only in this country, but throughout the world, and many operators have purchased it. As I understand, 20 Vanguards are due to operate about the middle of next year. The Comets are already flying on routes all over Europe—although without fare-paying passengers—and I understand

that preliminary results are highly successful. Twenty-four DH121s arc supposed to come into service about the end of 1963–64. However, there is a problem with the Rotodyne, about which I shall have something to say later.
My right hon. and hon. Friends agree that it is a good thing that there should be a Minister of Aviation with an overall responsibility for the supply and general oversight of the aircraft industry. We believe that that will result in a much better industry and that the right hon. Gentleman will be in a strong position to assess the needs of the Corporations and the capacity of the industry to meet them.
That brings me to a topic which has been uppermost in my mind for some time. Is the Minister proposing any changes in the policy of ordering and paying for aircraft used by the Corporations? I understand that over the last few years the policy has been that civil aircraft must be a private venture of the companies concerned with whom the Corporations have had to make direct arrangements for the supply of aircraft, with no Government money as such going to the manufacturers.
In its Report last summer, the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries said that the cost of developing new aircraft made in Britain appeared to fall too heavily on the Corporations and that the Corporations were involved in very heavy expenditure on the development and proving of aircraft taken into their service. It was B.O.A.C.'s experience, particularly with the Britannia, that the teething troubles of new aircraft lasted for more than two years and needed considerable changes at great cost and inconvenience, as was the case with the electrical system on the Britannia.
Even the Viscount, splendid aircraft though it is, has had its troubles. After six years' service, B.E.A. spent more than £300,000 last year on putting new main spars into early Viscounts. B.E.A. calculates that the direct cost of introducing one new major type of aircraft over four years is about £400,000 a year. Next year, B.E.A. will be introducing two new types of aircraft at the same time, and the Comet will add another £100,000 a year to costs before B.E.A. gets a penny.
What is being done to meet B.O.A.C.'s view that the Corporation should have some form of help and financial assistance for taking on what is, after all, development work, in other words, bringing an aircraft into proper operating condition, an expense which might otherwise have fallen on manufacturers? In its last report, B.O.A.C. says that £5 million of its expenditure was written off as due to pre-operational development which had to be undertaken before aircraft could be brought into service. I am not pressing the Minister for a full statement today, but he promised the House that he would soon make a statement on the reorganisation of the aircraft industry. I hope that he will be able to give us some assurance on this matter, since it affects the supply of aircraft to Corporations.
There have been Questions in the House and considerable Press comment about the Rotodyne. I want to deal with the story as it concerns B.E.A. It is a very sad story and calls for urgent consultation. On 7th January, 1959, B.E.A. sent the Fairey Aviation Company a letter of intent, indicating that the Corporation expected in due course to place an order for six Rotodynes, providing that the aircraft met B.E.A.'s requirements. B.E.A. wanted the aircraft for a city-to-city service with a range of 250 miles and a capacity of 60 passengers. I believe that it was intended to use the aircraft on the London—Paris run as soon as possible.
At the annual meeting of the Fairey Aviation Company, on 20th November, the chairman of the company told the shareholders that, after considerable delay, the company was within a few weeks of signature of a development contract for about £4 million of Government support. He said "within a few weeks", which was ominous because at one time we were told that we were within a few days of a Summit Conference and it may be that this decision has gone the same way. He warned the Government of the effect of two years' delay and stated that it was difficult in all the prevailing circumstances to decide whether they should go ahead without a clear and sufficiently large Government order.
The next stage in this history was the Government's decision to make avail-

able to B.E.A. a development grant of £1,400,000 to help B.E.A. to bring into being a helicopter service between London, Paris, Brussels, and Amsterdam in 1963, based on the Fairey Rotodyne. Recently, the Minister announced to the House that the whole scheme had been more or less knocked on the head by the announcement by the Fairey Company that it had rejected the contract and wanted additional Government assistance on expenditure not yet specified. The Minister promised to make urgent representations about that and we would like to know what the present position is, since B.E.A.'s future helicopter services are affected by it. This seems to be a classic case of where, when Government money is involved in bringing a worth-while project to fruition, the Government should have a financial stake in the project and, if necessary, certain control and have some overall responsibility and not be restricted merely to writing out cheques.
What do the Government propose to do when this game of bluff, which is what it seems to be, is brought to an end, and when can we expect production of the Rotodyne to proceed? B.E.A. is virtually committed to the purchase of six Rotodynes. Much depends on whether noise factors, and so on, will permit B.E.A. to operate the helicopters into the middle of cities—there is a strong possibility that that will not be permitted. However, I am sure that B.E.A. would like to know whether it can go ahead with the purchase of these aircraft. If B.E.A. then finds that it cannot operate them, will the Government be prepared to take over these aircraft for Service purposes, particularly for the Army? Such a possibility would help B.E.A. in its assessment of the position.
May I now turn to what is perhaps the most important factor as it concerns the users of air transport, the cost of air travel. We can divide the users of air transport into two main classes, those who travel on an expense account and usually travel first-class, and those who travel and have to pay for it—those who now travel either in the tourist class, or, where it operates, on the economy flights. Most hon. Members will have to be included in the latter category.
The all-important factor that we have to bear in mind to achieve expansion of air travel by the Corporations is the need to fill the new aircraft coming into service by tapping the large potential reservoir of air users. It can best be done by reducing fares. As far as we see it, there must be no slackening of effort to get the cost of running air lines down and to reduce fares. On this, both B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. have good records.
Throughout the country the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been making pious appeals to private industry to reduce its prices. From all accounts he has been meeting with some sticky resistance. It is a pity that he does not turn his attention to the nationalised Air Corporations. He could then quote them as an example to private industry of how a nationalised body has been going about its job successfully in very difficult conditions.

Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham): It is very easy to talk about a nationalised industry doing a job successfully if it is allowed to have a deficit of £5 million for doing it.

Mr. Chetwynd: The hon. Gentleman knows that that £5 million had nothing to do with fares. B.O.A.C. is in the forefront of getting prices down because it realises that the lower the prices are the more people will travel and the greater will be the profitability.

Mr. Paul Williams: A number of independent operators have reduced their fares over a long period. Their fares are much lower than the Corporation's fares.

Mr. Chetwynd: I am not disputing that. I welcome it in the sphere in which they operate. There are very good reasons why they do it. Instead of running down nationalised industries we must give credit where credit is due, and considerable credit is due to the Corporations for their past policies.
B.E.A. is faced with the difficult problem of smoothing out the peaks in air travel. It is seasonable; it is daily as against nightly; and it is affected by mid-week travel and by holidays. The solution is that for longer periods the use of aircraft it is operating must be increased to level out these peaks in traffic. To meet this the Corporation has introduced a policy of making greater use of differentials between the

fares payable at different times of the day. at different times of the week, and at different times of the year.
The House will be familiar with the fact that, from 1st April next year, on more than 400 fares there will be considerable reductions, ranging from 15 per cent., on the average, to 25 per cent., and, in some cases, there are even greater reductions. In addition, B.E.A. is also entering in a big way into the inclusive tour market. By offering, in conjunction with the travel agencies, holiday excursions, it is hoped to get more economical use of the additional capacity coming into service.
B.O.A.C. has also been in the forefront in pressing for lower fares. The Corporation is committed to this heavy purchase of new aircraft running into millions of pounds. It is hoped that by the improved economies of the new aircraft, they can pass on to the general public savings in the form of cheaper fares.
What is happening about their applications to extend their cheap services to Africa, India, Australia and the Far East? We all know that on the North Atlantic run the new economy class has proved a great success. We regret that it was not possible, through the I.A.T.A. conference, to get this extended to other routes in the world. Because of the failure to do that we are left with the Corporations pressing the Government to allow them to permit lower fares on these routes to Colonial Territories in East and Central Africa, the Far East and the Caribbean.
I hope that the Minister will be able to make an anouncement about this today, and that he will be able to give favourable consideration to this unilateral action to reduce the fares on the cabotage routes. In default of that, would it be possible to call an emergency conference of the I.A.T.A. some time in the early spring, to go over this again? It is time that we applied some other criterion to the fixing of fares on the routes. If one goes by a slower plane that ought to be considered in fixing the fare. We ought not to be dependent on the meals, whether they are sandwich or otherwise, in deciding which service we use.
May I now deal with the position of the Corporations and the independents?


The operation of the independent airlines obviously has a considerable bearing on the success or failure of the Corporations. There is some confusion about the position. The Minister has a duty to further the interests of the Corporations, though I recognise that by their election programme the Government are, at the same time, committed to giving greater opportunities to private enterprise to take part in air transport development without—and this is an important qualification—in any way impairing the competitive strength of our international air services.
The Labour Party has no doctrinnaire opposition to the independents. Indeed, it was a Labour Government who, in 1948, first accepted the policy of associate agreements between private enterprise and B.E.A. During the past seven years the independents have increased their share of the total British air traffic in terms of passenger miles from 12 per cent. in 1951–52 to 32 per cent. in 1957–58.
The Air Transport Advisory Council made some comments on this in its last annual report. It stated that in its opinion the operation of the independent companies had not to any material extent adversely affected the growth of the traffic of the two Corporations. That view was contested, at least as tar as the future was concerned, by both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.
What is the Minister doing about the applications now before him by the independents for permission to operate services at very low fares to a number of colonial points throughout the world? His decision could have a considerable effect on both the independents and the Corporations.
The Corporations opposed these applications on the ground that such services would necessarily cause material divergence of traffic from themselves. Indeed, B.O.A.C. estimated that in the first full year of the operation of these services it would suffer a loss of £5½ million and that it would prejudice its planned programme of development.
B.E.A. also has had to meet opposition from the independents. In its last Annual Report the Corporation says:
we do not adopt a dog-in-the-manger approach to the expansion of the independent airlines. But we must oppose developments which would adversely affect our traffic and necessary future expansion.

The independent airlines continue to enjoy a significant share of British traffic. Any extension of that into the scheduled services of the Corporations would impinge on the Corporations' activities and would have to be resisted. The Minister is now trying to come to a decision on this problem. I hope he will bear in mind that he has a responsibility to the Corporations and to their employees who feel somewhat unsettled and uncertain about their future.
Recently, some of my hon. Friends and I had talks with some of the employees of B.E.A. We were most impressed by the way in which they identified themselves with the success of the Corporations. They would be very upset indeed if there were any substantial inroads into the operations of the Corporations. There would seem to be ample scope for the development by the independents in their present sphere of chartering, trooping, inclusive tours and the scheduled routes which they now operate.
The second reason why we can agree to the provisions of the Bill is the success of the Corporations in their present and past activities. If we look a little more closely at the results of those activities I am sure that we can agree that any objective appraisal of their affairs would rebut the general charge—all too common at and before the election—that nationalisation has failed. During the election some people were very quiet about the achievements of the Corporations. They made a general charge, with very few facts to support it. Whatever we may think of nationalisation as a theory or philosophy, in actual practice we can see that it represents a success story for our airlines whatever tests we apply.
B.E.A. has been operating at a profit for the last six years, and it hopes to have the biggest-ever profit this year. Barring some unforeseen happening this winter, that profit should be about £2 million. This September, its traffic level is 20 per cent. up on September, 1958, and its revenue-load factor is almost 75 per cent., as against 64·4 per cent. a year ago. It is increasing rapidly in freight carrying; indeed, it is the biggest freight carrier operator in Europe. I am sure that this offers a much


greater field for expansion by the Corporations, and I hope that that possibility will be seriously explored.
Another very important thing is that it is a direct dollar earner. Last year, over 6 million dollars were paid to it by the United States, in addition to the money which American tourists spent over here. In the six summer months of this year B.E.A. carried 20 per cent. more traffic, with only a 12 per cent. increase in capacity. It is now carrying over 3 million passengers a year, and is the largest passenger-carrying airline in the world, outside the United States.
All these facts must be borne in mind in judging whether it is a fit body to be entrusted with this additional money. In 1960. B.E.A. will increase its capacity by about 20 per cent. over 1959. It will be operating an all-British fleet to look after the increased traffic which it hopes to operate, and a major factor in filling this extra capacity will be the introduction of lower fares on selected routes. It is our view that B.E.A. has served the nation well and that, given the right opportunities, it will continue to do so.
B.O.A.C. also has a record of considerable achievement, in spite of many adverse factors. I do not want to slur over them, because some are considerable, and the 1958–59 Report reveals a grave financial loss. It was a bad year. But I believe that in regard to its planned programme of expansion it has now made up the ground that it lost as result of the misfortunes of the early 'fifties, caused by the disasters to the Comet I and the delay in the introduction of the Britannia.
It has reasserted its grip on the North American routes, and it is very soon to expand into South America once again. It has pursued a policy of Commonwealth co-operation—which I am sure will be commended by hon. Members on both sides of the House—by extending its partnership with Qantas to include a pool agreement linking B.O.A.C., Qantas and Air India. It has reached a pool agreement with Trans-Canada Airlines to cover the Trans-Atlantic service between Canada and this country. I am sure that these agreements will greatly benefit the travelling public, and will also he of inestimable service to the airlines and the aircraft industry of this country. Can the Minister tell us what

are the prospects of a conference of Commonwealth air lines fairly soon, to work out a common aircraft policy as well as a common airlines policy?
B.O.A.C.'s maintenance position is a difficult one, but it has made considerable strides in the last year. Its engineering costs in 1958–59 were 9d. per ton-mile, and it hopes to reduce that to 7d. in 1959–60 and 5½d. in 1960–61. There is no room for complacency. When we look at its balance sheet we see that B.O.A.C.'s losses are still too great. We must examine its associate agreements in order to see whether the large losses, amounting to about £2½ million, are abnormal or are to be expected. I believe that they are abnormal and that the Corporation is now in a much better position to run profitably. B.O.A.C. has every prospect of breaking even in 1959–60, and we should be proud of that fact.
Many problems remain to be solved before we can decide what future faces the Air Corporations. The supersonic airliner is one, and the noise problem is another. A third is the question of reducing the time taken to travel from the London terminals to London Airport. I was glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that something will be done to improve the Victoria terminal of B.O.A.C., which is rather depressing at present. I also hope that an underground escalator will be constructed from Gloucester Road tube station to the Cromwell Road air terminal. That would facilitate travel from London to the airport itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) will have something to say about the noise problem which so distresses his constituents.
We must always bear in mind that the air transport business is a very marginal one. It depends upon political stability throughout the world and also upon an expanding world economy. I approve the appointment of the Minister, and, in particular, the present Minister, with clear responsibility and real power in regard to both the operational and constructional side of aviation. I should like to refer to something I read in a B.E.A. house journal, referring to initials. The Ministry of Aviation is now known as Moa, and the dictionary definition of that word is, "an extinct


bird without wings which cannot fly". It is akin to the ostrich, which, as we all know, buries its head in the sands. Perhaps I can use the right hon. Gentleman's name and hope that that process will be reversed, and that "Sandys" will get his head into M.O.A. and that something will come of it.
We support the Bill, as we shall support anything which will lead to a greater air-mindedness on the part of the public. I look forward to the day when it will be as easy to make a journey by aeroplane as it is to travel now by bus or train. What the airlines want now, above anything else, is another ten years of the subsonic era, in order to pay off the vast sums which have been put into the aircraft which are now coming into service. I hope that they will get this, and I hope that their aim to make a large reduction in fares will lead to an increasing amount of air travel by all people.

5.9 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on making his first speech from the Opposition Front Bench. He has certainly covered a lot of ground and has given much detail. I welcome his remarks, although I do not agree with many of them. In the concluding part of his speech, he hoped that soon it would be as easy to travel by air as it is to travel by bus or train. If he ever travels between Euston and Manchester, he will learn that it is never easy. It is much easier to travel by air from London to Ringway, except that one has to book one's seat three weeks in advance owing to the lack of frequency of service. I should like to see a service which was sufficiently frequent to enable me to catch a following plane if I missed the one I was intending to catch, without having to book a seat. Here is a great opportunity. There are only about two or three aeroplanes a day and one has to wait for about ten hours in between.
I was not going to refer to the independents, but the hon. Gentleman opposite mentioned them. Of course, it must be recognised that very little was done for the independents up till recently. They struggled along without any tenure

at all. Admittedly they were given associate agreements, but that is not a very satisfactory way of doing business. When it comes to raising capital with which to buy expensive aircraft it is a difficult matter when it is known that the agreements may be cut off at a moment's notice.
The Conservative Party has a duty, without unduly upsetting the nationalised industries, to do something for the independents. The hon. Gentleman who complained that the Corporations have the sole task of developing new aircraft. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman opposite that, given the opportunity, some at any rate of the independents would be very glad to share that task with the Corporations.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the staffs of the Corporations feeling unsettled. Let me tell him that the staffs of the independents are even more unsettled about their prospects and will continue to feel unsettled unless something is done for them. I do not think that what is done for them need be done to the detriment of either of the Corporations. The expansion of the aircraft operating industry is somewhere about 14 or 16 per cent. every year. I should think that the independents could quite well share in that expansion. The Americans are flying far more services across the North Atlantic than we are. I think that the British independent operators could share in that traffic.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the Americans do not allow independents to interfere or compete with the schedule lines which cross the Atlantic?

Sir A. V. Harvey: There are several companies. One of them is Seaboard which operates more services across the Atlantic than do the schedule lines. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman accounts for that.
I wish to congratulate B.E.A., its chairman and staff on their trading results. The hon. Gentleman opposite spoke about six years' profits by B.E.A., but he did not say anything about B.O.A.C.'s losses. He rather skated over that point, which is quite understandable. We all know the reasons for it. I would suggest that B.E.A. ought to do more to develop


internal services. I am sure that in this compact island of 50 million inhabitants we could get people more air-minded regarding travel in Britain.
An old complaint is that when one goes to catch a 'plane at London Airport at 7 or 7.30 in the morning one cannot get a cup of coffee or refreshment of any sort on the aircraft. Such things add up and bring in revenue.
When my right hon. Friend replies I should like him to deal with the agreement between B.E.A. and Olympic Airways, the Greek airline. I asked my right hon. Friend a Question yesterday, and in his reply he stated that there was a ten-year agreement and that B.E.A. was selling Comet aircraft to Olympic Airways. I should like to know whether these aircraft are being bought for cash on delivery or if the payments are being spread over a period. I believe that we as custodians of the taxpayers' money have a right to know some details of the agreement between B.E.A. and Olympic Airways.
Regarding the Rotodyne—the hon. Gentleman opposite referred to that, of course—I think the whole House is anxious that this aircraft should make progress and that it should not be lost to Britain. I doubt very much whether all the blame for the delay can be placed entirely upon the manufacturers. I understand that B.E.A. asked for a different size Rotodyne, and, of course, the Corporation has laid down very definite specifications about noise. No doubt that matter will be dealt with satisfactorily, but it will take time. The noise problem of jets has taken several years to overcome. It has necessitated the designing of special manifolds and so on. The noise factor can be improved, but it is not something that can be dealt with in the immediate future. I hope that the Fairey Aviation Company will be able to get on more quickly and that my right hon. Friend will accelerate the negotiations and get the matter settled as soon as possible.
One thing which I think occurs to all of us is that, in view of the large investment made today in airlines all over the world and the tremendous efforts made in aviation and the risks put into it by highly skilled people, the return, generally speaking, is very small indeed. In

fact, the whole operation is really done on a razor's edge.
If one compares the losses and profits of B.O.A.C. with those of other international operating companies one finds that the performance of that Corporation is not very good. If we take ton miles and the number of maintenance crews maintaining the same number of aircraft, B.O.A.C. comes out of it very badly indeed. I suggest that in talking to the chairman of B.O.A.C. my right hon. Friend should point out to him that there is tremendous scope in that direction.
The hon. Gentleman opposite referred to the question of reducing the number of maintenance men. We were told last year that a good proportion of the £5 million loss was due to a surplus of over 2,500 maintenance engineers. How on earth did such a situation build up? It must have been taking place over ten years in order to reach a surplus of nearly 3,000 engineers on maintenance alone.
Of course, unlike other nationalised industries—for instance, unlike the National Coal Board which is not subject to competition—the Air Corporations have to compete with foreign airlines. That is really the yardstick. It is quite right to reduce fares and to get more people into the aircraft so as to fill the vacant seats.
Can my right hon. Friend tell me what is the position today with regard to the Britannia aircraft? We have heard a lot about late deliveries. Are there any penalty clauses for late deliveries, and, if so, what do they amount to? Has the contract been concluded or when will it be concluded? When my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Pensions was Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the then hon. Member for Stroud, Sir Robert Perkins, asked him:
if he will now make a statement about the purchase of Britannia and Douglas aircraft by the British Overseas Airways Corporation.
My right hon. Friend replied:
Her Majesty's Government have authorised B.O.A.C. to order 10 DC7C aircraft. This is subject to the express condition that these aircraft shall be sold when the long-range Britannia comes into route service. The gross cost in dollars for the American aircraft and initial spares will be of the order of £13 million, but most, if not all, of this cost should be recovered on resale."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1955; 537. c. 203.]


We all know the sad story of these aircraft. They are now being offered for sale for about £300,000. Personally, I do not think they will fetch that amount, or even half of it. I am not blaming anyone. No one foresaw jet aircraft coming into service so quickly. However, I think that offers should have been invited at the time and a contract made with a willing buyer for the purchase of those aircraft three or four years later.
Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether in purchasing Boeing aircraft arrangements are being made for their resale when the VC1O comes into servcie? We are dealing here with very large sums of money. It occurred to me this afternoon that we are putting millions into this industry. The House can spend these vast sums of money on the decision of twenty or thirty hon. Members. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) will know that outside industry would find much greater difficulty in raising sums of that sort. I believe that the amount to be spent on Boeing aircraft is £43·4 million. Are those aircraft to be sold when the VC1O comes into service, or are we taking a chance and proposing to try to sell the aircraft at a convenient date in the future?
One word of warning to my right hon. Friend. It is that practically all the world air lines are committed. They have either ordered the Boeing 707 or the Douglas DC8. We hope that in the case of Trans-Canada Airlines that company will buy some VC1Os. It may not be able to sell these Boeings in four years' time. Small airlines like Swissair will operate DC8s. The Scandinavian airlines and airlines all over the world have ordered airliners which will cost £2 million each; and when the time comes it will not be possible to sell them. When we are dealing with such huge sums as £45 million, we ought to know a little more about what will happen in the future when the VC1O comes into service. Incidentally, I think it will be a better aircraft than the Boeing or the DC8. It will save the building of miles of concrete runway and it has shown a better performance.
I am told on good authority that the DC8 is 900 miles down on the range of its estimated performance. We do not

hear much about these American tragedies when they happen, but it only needs something to happen to a British aircraft and it is headlined in all the newspapers. Here is the DC8 900 miles down on range and top speed, and many of the operators taking delivery of this aircraft could easily hand it back to the makers because it has not come up to its stated performance. But they do not do so because they would not have an aircraft with which to operate if they did. Here is a great opportunity for the VC1O. Do not let us become depressed about it. The Vickers organisation has set up a service for the Viscount which is equal to none and, on that basis, it should be able to put over something in that direction.
I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether B.O.A.C. contemplates ordering any Britannic aircraft, the large freighter of the future. I ask that because, on the North Atlantic route today, the scheduled North Atlantic freight-ton miles flown by members of I.A.T.A. increased by 18·5 per cent. last year and non-scheduled freight-ton mileage increased by 67 per cent. There are five carriers which operate between North America and Europe. There is Seaboard and Western, to which I have already referred, Pan American, K.L.M., T.W.A. and Swissair. Where is Britain in this great freight race across the North Atlantic? Nowhere.
A few years ago Airwork made a brave attempt to initiate a British service, but that organisation received no help or co-operation at all. It was not allowed to carry the British mail which sometimes went in American aircraft. In fact, it faced opposition. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the fact that Britain does not operate freight aircraft across the Atlantic is a tragedy. Here is a great opportunity to give the independent airlines a chance to rectify that position.
One pleasing feature is the news we read last week of the pooling agreement between Indian, British and Australian airlines. I consider that to be the most satisfying thing which has happened for a long time. I wish it had happened several years ago, in which case the story today might be different regarding the aircraft being operated.
I do not think we can take any of these things for granted, because air


transport is a very difficult business. We cannot gloss over the enormous losses made by B.O.A.C.—I am not referring to B.E.A.—and there is something wrong somewhere with the management of that organisation. I think that the Corporation wants cleaning up. Morale is not good, which is a matter I suggest must be put right. We cannot go on indefinitely losing millions of pounds every year. There is no inefficiency in the air. It is a good service; there is nothing to touch it. It is a question of the ground organisation.
I wish every success to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in their new Ministry. I am sure that the co-ordination they will bring about will produce results which will prove beneficial to our country.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I do not think any hon. Member on this side of the House would disagree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) about there being a prima facie case for a thorough overhaul of the management of B.O.A.C. Many of us are troubled not only by what is happening but by what has happened in recent months. However, I do not wish to pursue that point.
I desire to pay my personal tribute to the crews of the aircraft operated by B.E.A. and B.O.A.C., to the maintenance staff who service the machines, and to the transit staff who look after their passengers so well. When coming to this House from my constituency I travel by B.E.A. and return at the weekends by B.O.A.C., and so I experience the courtesy which is extended to all travellers on both services and know of the care which is taken of passengers.
There has been a comforting change in the B.O.A.C. arrangements for passengers. Not so long ago we used to fly from London Airport to Prestwick and there was seldom a cup of tea or coffee available. It had disappeared and one had to pay for anything one had. That, of course, hit me more than it did others—

Mr. Chetwynd: My hon. Friend being a Scot.—[Laughter.]

Mr. Rankin: —but I am glad to say that those little extras have now reappeared, and they are particularly comforting on that journey. They were especially comforting a fortnight ago when my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and I took off on the 9 p.m. plane to Prestwick and New York. We reached Prestwick at 10.25 p.m. to hear words which I have often quoted in this House; that due to high cross winds at Prestwick exceeding 20 knots the aircraft would not land but would return to London. So at 12 o'clock midnight we returned to the spot from which we had embarked at 9 p.m. For a time there was a fear on the part of my hon. Friend that we might continue to New York. We were saved by the fact that the plane has to refuel at Prestwick in order to continue the journey. It had only enough fuel to bring us back to London. So we were habitated in a hotel in London for Friday night and returned home by B.E.A. on Saturday morning.
That is an aspect of the operation costs of the airline which I am sure the hon. Member for Macclesfield will bear in mind when he is criticising B.O.A.C. I was told by the driver who brought us to London that on some evenings the Corporation is faced with the task of accommodating 200 passengers who may be stranded, not all for the same reason, whom the Corporation must disperse all over London and its marginal areas, even as far as Croydon. That is a big task, but it must be undertaken, and it is a costly one in view of the fact that the price of bed and breakfast in many hotels is excessive. There we have a situation which is forced on B.O.A.C., not because of cross winds, but because the Government have continually refused to turn Prestwick into a second international airport, despite the fact that for years I and other hon. Members have asked for that to be done. B.O.A.C. have to pay for that lackadaisical attitude—not, I agree, on the part of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have come new to this task—of their predecessors who refused to recognise that Prestwick should be treated in keeping with the designation which we in this House have conferred on it. In the year 1959 we still cannot land at Prestwick Airport big, heavy machines like the


Britannia and others which cross the North Atlantic.
This grudging attitude of the Government towards Prestwick is deplorable. We are talking tonight about sums running into almost £100 million, yet the Government refuse to spend £6 million on the whole development of Prestwick—not just on the runways, which would cost much less. When they will be completed, I do not know. We have pressed this time and again, and the fact is once more borne in upon us that in certain conditions runway arrangements at Prestwick are still inadequate to deal with the operational needs of B.O.A.C.
I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government wanted to see this industry expanded. We all desire to see the industry expanded. He actually said that he wanted "to see the expansion f the nationalised aircraft industry." We welcome those words. No hon. Member on either side of the House would dissent from them, but what I want to emphasise is that, although I have heard that thought expressed frequently by various Ministers, it has been very slow in materialising at Prestwick Airport. When we express our wish for an expanding aircraft industry we must note what one of the great operators has to say about this. I refer to the B.E.A. Report, which says on page 27:
The British independent airlines frequently draw attention to the restrictions and limitations on expansion from which they maintain they suffer. We do not think they have much ground for complaint.
It goes on to point out that one-third of total British air transport is today carried by independent operators. I say this with respect to those who are interested in the independent operators. Any further expansion of their services runs the danger of preventing the full and complete expansion of our nationalised Corporations, which the Minister has stated he desires to see. In noting those sentences from the B.E.A. Report, we have also to notice the sentence on the same page in which the Corporation tells us:
B.E.A.'s economy is balanced on a knife-edge.
I agree that that may be common with a great many of the independent operators. The Minister of Aviation indicated to them recently at a gathering in the

West End of London that he had the feeling there were too many of them and that perhaps they would have to think of doing something about reducing their numbers. The Minister evidently feels they can do something to help themselves and that should be the first step. This type of continuing pressure on the nationalised Corporations sometimes becomes very unfair competition. The Report also says:
We are one of the few major airlines in the world which have to subsist on short-haul routes alone, and at the same time have still to meet a large deficit on Domestic Services.
Which brings me to another point I want to develop. One of the domestic services is to the Scottish Highlands and Islands. Last year B.E.A. lost £335,000 on that service. In the previous year it lost £360,000; and in the year before that it lost £268,000 on carrying out what everyone says is an essential service. When we put an obligation on the Corporation to operate those services which are run at a loss and which no independent operator would dream of touching, it is very wrong of hon. Members opposite to criticise losses which they themselves by there attitude help to inflict on B.E.A. This arrangement has been challenged in the Report of the Select Committee on the Air Corporations. I do not want to quote much from that Report but to refer to the conclusion on page 29, which says:
Your Committee recommend that provision for them …
that is, the services to which I have referred—
should cease to be absorbed in the accounts of B.E.A., but should be made in the annual Estimates of the appropriate Departments.
The Minister has been considering this. It may be that before we conclude today's debate he will have something of interest to say to us about the view he takes of that recommendation of the Select Committee, which made a very careful inquiry into the finances of the nationalised Corporations.
In my view, the point becomes more pertinent because of the fact that at this moment we are putting through the House a Bill which deals with services by sea and road to the Western Isles. We are proposing, through the appropriate Government Department, to subsidise Messrs. MacBrayne, to the extent of £360,000 per year. We are also taking a much more important step. We


are, if necessary, to build ships for the contractors, who in all probability will be Messrs. MacBrayne. The Secretary of State for Scotland is to become a shipowner. Under the provisions of the Bill, he may be a ship-breaker or ship repairer. This is a most interesting development.
In the course of the debates which have been proceeding on that Bill, it has been accepted that not only is there a "Road to the Isles" and a sea-way to the Isles, but there is also an airway to the Isles. Today, if we expect people to travel to and from the Western Isles, it order to give them some of the facilities which we have in the big cities—to travel to and fro easily and cheaply—we have to recognise that speed is now an essential feature in travel. Therefore, the aircraft becomes a mode of travel, as it is now, to and from the Western Isles.
If the Government are to provide a subsidy for road and sea traffic, as recommended in the Report of the Select Committee, why not for air traffic? In addition, this morning, when I was pressing this point on the Secretary of State for Scotland—perhaps now we should call him the "Lord of the Isles"—it was decided that a Hovercraft was a vessel and that, therefore, a Hovercraft will come under the subsidy.
I now pose to the Minister of Aviation the point which I posed to the Secretary of State for Scotland, which I hope he will bear in mind when he is considering the matter. If a vessel which moves an a relatively small cushion of air is to get a subsidy from the appropriate Government Department, how is the Minister of Aviation to refuse a subsidy for an aircraft which is buoyed up or airborne by a much larger body of air? It seems to me that he must very seriously consider this point. In view of what is happening to Messrs. MacBrayne, and in view of the extensions of the definition of the word "vessel," it is unfair that B.E.A. should go on being faced year in and year out with the task of providing from its own resources the costs of running a service which ought to be borne by the nation as a whole.
There are one or two other points which I should like to mention. The right hon. Gentleman and I have discussed across the Floor of the House

various matters which are not always satisfactorily explored by means of Question and Answer. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will feel glad that an increasing number of Members on both sides of the House are taking an interest in him and his work. I am certain that any Minister who wants his job to be an important one will feel, when he sees on the Order Paper 30 or 40 Questions directed to him, that he is a very important Minister indeed. At the moment, we usually have only 15 or 16 Questions on one day, but I promise the right hon. Gentleman that after we come back refreshed, I hope, from our Christmas Recess and perhaps a trip to the Western Isles, we shall display an even greater interest in some of the things about which we have been talking tonight.
I want briefly to turn to one point which I have explored by means of Questions on various occasions. Ever since we passed the legislation creating the Corporations, Ministers of both parties, in the Labour Government and in the successive Conservative Governments, have said that the guiding principle in flying aircraft is safety first, safety second and safety all the time. Therefore, the control of aircraft in flight becomes a vital matter, because in an aircraft accident the tragedy is its finality. There is practically no crash survivability in an aircraft. In a road accident or in a sea accident, there is some chance of survival, but when an aircraft crashes, the result is much the same as when one drops an egg. There is a splatter and everything has gone. Therefore, the control of the aircraft in flight is important, and we have been trying to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the need for having a uniform and single control.
I want to put a point to him. I am not in any way doubting his knowledge, though I should like to ask him if he realises what happens when an aircraft is coming into London Airport from the North. When it reaches Watford, it is under the approach controller who operates from the tower at London Airport. At that point, he gives a direction to the aircraft, and if there is any other aircraft approaching each receives its height level and its route. Then, as the aircraft come in towards London, if one of the machines happens to be—as it can well be and actually was on a famous occasion—a military one, it comes under


radar control at Heath Row, while the other machine comes under the control of London Airport.
Because I have used the terms London Airport and Heath Row in that way, some people have thought that I was wrong, because they considered that London Airport and Heath Row were just names for the same place. In fact, Heath Row is used to distinguish the military radar control from the London Airport civil radar control. So we have now passed from the approach controller to the two radar controls. Finally, the military machine will come under the Northolt military control before it lands at Northolt. Therefore, we have four different controls covering two machines coming into London or Northolt.
There is the danger that there could be confusion between Watford and London. That has happened many times. As a result, I have been suggesting to the Minister that there should be one form of air traffic control and that it should be under civilian authority. I hope that he is thinking very seriously about this. It is all right setting off, but we want to have a reasonable certainty of landing safely at the other end. I have set off weekly for nearly fifteen years and have always landed safely, and I hope that that luck will continue.
Nevertheless, I raise the point today because yesterday, in a Written Answer to me—the right hon. Gentleman was at the bottom of the list for Questions and we could not get at him—the Minister dealt with a Question about the situation which will be created when Nutts Corner and Aldergrove are amalgamated. Apparently it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to put the amalgamated airport under the military air traffic controller. His reason is that it is more efficient and economical. I should like to know why. Hon. Members will see the Minister's reply to me in today's HANSARD. Is military control more efficient and more economical? Many people would dispute that suggestion. I was astonished by the Minister's Answer, because the developing trend in flying all over the world is to place the control of aircraft under a civilian authority. I hope that the Minister will say a few words about the control system and about the problems which I have

outlined in respect of the Western Isles and Prestwick.
There are many things which we could talk about tonight, and we have plenty of time. I wanted to say a word about Prestwick, a word about the Western Isles and a word about safety. All these are important topics. Every hon. Member who sets out on a journey by air from London Airport ought to know that, whether he likes it or not, he may be landed at Prestwick. It often happens. That being so, we should make sure that all arrangements will be satisfactory and that we shall have a safe landing on a runway adequate for the purpose.
Reference has been made to the fact that B.E.A. and, on its operational side, B.O.A.C. are a great success story. On both sides of the House everyone who likes to advertise success will join with me in impressing upon the right hon. Gentleman, who also wants to publicise success, that we should make known this story all over the countryside—in London, Glasgow, Edinburgh, North and South, East and West—and repeat the slogan "Travel by B.E.A." It is a great success story. Why should not we advertise it? Why should not the Government tell the world what B.E.A. is doing? It is the greatest operator in Europe, and it is ours. Should we not tell that aloud to the world? This is a story of transporting people in comfort, at speed and in safety by B.E.A. at home and in Europe and by B.O.A.C. throughout the world. Why should we not sing that song to the world? Who better fitted to lead the singing than the Minister of Aviation?

5.54 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) will not object if I do not follow him throughout his speech, but there are certain points which he made which I shall take up. At one point he said that it was wrong for us to criticise losses made by the Corporations. I beg to differ from him.

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Rankin rose—

Mr. Burden: It may be that that is not what the hon. Member intended to say, but I took a careful note and that is in fact what he said. I suggest that it certainly is the duty of the House to criticise in these matters, for the purpose of the Bill is to increase the authorised


borrowing powers of the B.O.A.C. from £160 million to £180 million and of B.E.A. from £60 million to £95 million.

Mr. Rankin: I am not disputing that that is what I said, but if the hon. Member looks at HANSARD tomorrow, he will see that the phrase was used in relation to the services to the Highlands and Islands. I feel it wrong to criticise losses when we were forcing the Corporation to bear the cost of this service.

Mr. Burden: With respect, I think that we must take the picture as a whole. We cannot pick out little bits of the Corporation's activities and say, "We must not talk about them because they show a deficit". We must not suggest that we can talk only about those operations which show a profit. I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish to suggest it. Moreover, it would do the House and the Corporations no good whatever. I submit that when the Corporations ask the House for considerable sums of public money to be made available to them, it is our duty to criticise if we feel so disposed and also to try to be constructive.
Some of us must readjust our attitude to the Corporations. The Labour Party must get away from the idea that nationalised Corporations can do no wrong in any circumstances and many of my hon. Friends must eradicate from their minds the attitude that nationalised industries can do no right in any circumstances. We must try to look at this matter objectively. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) put the matter in perspective when he said that we must always remember that these Corporations are in direct competition with similar services throughout the rest of the world. They therefore cannot be cushioned, as possibly other nationalised industries in this country can be cushioned.
There is also another aspect of which we are inclined to lose sight. Owing to the enormous borrowing powers of the nationalised Corporations and the fact that they can go on building up a colossal deficit, we somehow seem to regard them not only as sacrosanct but in some way frequently is if there is something virtuous in this and that no one else could do better.
Many of the small independent companies are paying their way under extremely difficult circumstances—circumstances in which the nationalised Corporations are enabled to, and do, impose restrictive powers on the development of the independent companies. Despite all this, these companies manage not only to maintain useful services but to help the British aircraft manufacturing industry to give the public good service.
We must look at the whole matter on that basis. In the long run, it all comes down to the single fact that we in this island by some means or other must establish ourselves as supreme in the airways of today and tomorrow as we have been supreme in mercantile marine activity in past years. If we fail to do that, we shall certainly restrict our opportunities for development as a great trading nation, for so much of our future depends on our development in the air.
I will take up very shortly one other point made by the hon. Member for Govan about the advertising of the facilities of the Corporations throughout the country. That is being done. It is not the job of Members of Parliament anyhow. It is the job of the public relations departments of the Corporations. They are not only staffed with highly efficient personnel who are very well paid, but they do the job abroad as well as in this country. The Comet service to Scandinavia is due to open in the spring. Alongside that opening there will be a large display of British merchandise in one of the biggest stores in Scandinavia, together with the story which can be told of the carrying capacity and efficiency of B.E.A., with the suggestion that the Scandinavians should, and I hope will, make use of them.

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Rankin rose—

Mr. Burden: I am willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman again, but I hope that these interruptions will not he frequent.

Mr. Rankin: I recognise and accept that it is the duty of the public relations departments. As the hon. Gentleman is supporting me, will he join with me in pressing the Minister not in any way to limit the activities of the public relations departments in that respect?

Mr. Burden: I do not know whether an association between the hon. Gentleman and myself would be very fruitful. Some might consider that it was a liaison between sin and the devil.

Mr. Rankin: Just opposites speaking.

Mr. Burden: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman had an unfortunate experience when his trip to his home airport was interrupted. He mentioned that to illustrate the enormous cost that can result from delays to flights. It applies to every aircraft company—to the independents, to B.O.A.C., to B.E.A. and to all the airlines throughout the world. There is nothing unusual in it and it must not be regarded as something which is particularly responsible for the failures of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to make both ends meet. On one occasion I was going to the Middle East and unfortunately the aircraft in which I was supposed to fly came down in Paris. Although the cost to the airline concerned was very considerable, I spent a very enjoyable weekend in Paris. I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman's experience did not provide him with the same enjoyment.
We have noticed also that the Corporations are investing in very expensive new aircraft. We all hope that they will enable B.O.A.C. in particular to rectify its financial position in the future. The House will be interested to know that at the time that the Comet service was supposed to be operating after there had been a terrific build-up for it, the staff at B.O.A.C. decided to strike. We all know that that dragged on and the cost is estimated to have been about £1¼ million. For a long time there was a feeling abroad that all was not well between B.O.A.C. and its staff. In the last few months it has appeared that there is now a better basis of work and understanding between staff and management.
In a Corporation of this size, if there is not to be an absolutely tragic cut in services and profits, it is essential that relations between management and staff should be at the highest possible level. A situation should not be allowed to deteriorate so that a strike, which becomes a national calamity, develops without every possible avenue being explored before it becomes operative.
The total deficit for last year was £5 million. If there is truth in the statement that the cost of the strike was about £1¼ million and the cost of the ancillary companies, particularly Middle East Airlines and British West Indian Airways Limited, are taken into consideration, the total loss on the year for B.O.A.C. proper would appear to be about £1 million.
If that is so, the Corporation must look very closely into the advisability of continuing to carry the heavy load inflicted upon it by the losses incurred by some of its ancillary companies. Here is a very fruitful avenue which my right hon. Friend might explore. I do not think that B.O.A.C. would wish to hang on to some of these companies if there is no possibility of their being able to pay their way in the near future. The Corporation might be told fairly bluntly that the House expects that it will very seriously consider the advisability of carrying so many ancillary companies in the future.
The nationalised Air Corporations are in an entirely different position from the other nationalised industries; yet we have an opportunity of discussing their affairs only once a year when these accounts are brought into the House. Then it is for half a day only, which is inadequate. In view of the changing world, external competition and the vast importance of air transport to this country, my right hon. Friend should explore the possibility of the House debating the whole question more frequently than we do now. We should do so not merely from the point of view of examining accounts, but of discussing all the problems as they affect the future.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield and the hon. Member for Govan spoke about freight. There is no doubt about the great expansion of trade between countries and the surge in consumer demand. Many of our exports are highly seasonal, and unless they arrive at their destination dead on time they are either cancelled, or no more orders for them are received. More and more of our manufacturers are buying time, and are able to buy time, by the use of the air freight service, and there is a very fruitful area of development for the Corporations in the expansion of those facilities.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that Airwork, certainly the pioneer


of the independents in air freighting across the Atlantic, did not get a square deal and was forced to close down that service. The Corporations made efforts to restrict Airwork's activities without due regard to the general welfare of our industry, and without keeping a proper eye on tomorrow.
There will be an enormous extension in this sort of freighting, not only between this country and North America but also, as a result of the recent convention, between this country and Scandinavia—the Free Trade Association. Now is the time for the British independent airlines and the Corporations to start planning to take advantage of the opportunities that will arise.
The hon. Member for Govan resists any encroachment by the independents on what has come to be looked on as the preserve of the nationalised industries—

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Rankin rose—

Mr. Burden: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman was able to make a very long speech without any interruption, and I have already given way to him twice.
There is plenty of room in the air transport business of tomorrow for both the Corporations and the independents. I very much regret any impression that may have been given by the Corporations that they would not co-operate in any way by giving the independents an opportunity to advance. They seem to think that it might in some way or other interfere with their opportunities, or with what seems to be looked upon as their preserve. This is an enormous field, and the Corporations alone will not be able to carry our flag in it as it should be carried.
We want to encourage lower fares, but the hon. Gentleman opposite said, on the one hand, that we must encourage that for the Corporations and, on the other hand, he criticised the independents for trying to do the very thing that he says would be desirable for the nationalised Corporations. He cannot have it both ways. If we believe in lower fares, let us welcome them. Even if the Corporations are not able to compete—and I know that they are well able to compete— they should not be cosseted and preserved. They themselves say

that though the percentage of passengers carried diminished at one time, it has now started to rise. In page 9 of the B.O.A.C. Annual Report, it is stated:
With a fleet of 10 Douglas DC7Cs and with long range Britannias and Comets becoming available for service in increasing numbers throughout the year, the Corporation at last had equipment that was fully competitive.
In another part of the Report reference is made to fares on cabotage routes, and it is said:
Considerable publicity has been attracted by certain applications made by a number of British Independent Companies to the Air Transport Advisory Council for permission to operate services at very low fares to a number of colonial points throughout the world. The Corporation has opposed these applications both before the Air Transport Advisory Council and before similar advisory bodies in the colonial territories concerned.

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Rankin rose—

Mr. Burden: I am sorry. I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
If the Corporations say that they now have the equpiment that will enable them to compete with anybody in the world, they cannot turn round and say that they cannot compete with the independents, which are financed, not by Government loan, but by people wanting to make a profit.
I believe that the time has come when we have to give the independent airlines an opportunity to get the finance and the aircraft to fly the routes of the world much more broadly than they have been allowed to do in the past. That is in the interests of the country's trade generally. From every person whom we bring here, we not only get the money he or she spends on the air fare, but money from their purchases here.
For instance, every American visiting us can purchase and take back, free of duty and tax, about £300 worth of English merchandise. They also spend money in our hotels, and many of them, after a visit, are much more inclined to buy British merchandise when it appears in their shops in America than they were before. That means that we have a wonderful opportunity, not only to extend the power and scope of the Corporations and the independents—and improve their finances—but to see that their work plays an enormous part in ensuring that British merchandise shall flow more freely to


every corner of the world, through increased consumer demand.
I realise, as do most hon. Members, that my right hon. Friend and his Parliamentary Secretary have a very big task, but those of us who have seen my right hon. Friend's work in the last ten years in this House realise that he will grapple with that task with determination and courage. We all wish him the very best of luck.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I agree with the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) in two respects. First, we should debate this subject more often. We are not given enough time. Whether that is the fault of the Whips or of the Government I do not know, but we should have more time to debate the activities of the Air Corporations and of civil air aviation.
I also agree with the hon. Member about the importance of civil air transport to the country. Britain was, and still is, a great shipping Power, but times are changing. We are only in the early days of civil air transport. There will be great developments in the years ahead. It is more than possible that, in the next century, aircraft instead of ships will carry goods across the world. The whole industry is, therefore, vital to our country. Britain has been a great pioneer in the air, and many have been the British inventors and people who have given their time and energy so that British aircraft can today hold their own with any in the world.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on his first speech from the Front Bench. I know his interest in the subject. He has had several chats with hon. Members representing constituencies around London Airport, and I am confident that he will make a success of his job. I join him in the appreciation which he paid to the former hon. Member for Uxbridge, Mr. Frank Beswick, for the great work which he did in the House for civil air transport. Uxbridge, of course, is very close to my constituency, and I much appreciate the great help which Mr. Beswick has given me on this subject. I join with my hon. Friend in hoping that before long he will be back in the House.
I imagine that the two Corporations employ over 20,000 people. British European Airways employs 12,000, and I imagine that the combined total for the two Corporations must be more than 20,000. I am pleased that industrial relations between the executives of the Corporations are now much better. I know many employees of both Corporations, and I know well that their wish is to see both Corporations successful. A real lead is wanted, and I am quite certain that, if the Minister gives that lead, the employees will respond.
The Parliamentary Secretary said very clearly that the Bill is to provide the Corporations with more capital. They want more capital for new jet aircraft. They want improvements in the buildings at London Airport and improvements in their training schools. I hope that hon. Members will visit the training schools of both B.E.A. and B.O.A.C., when they will have an opportunity to see the great pains taken by the staff in training crews and pilots and the great efforts made for air safety. The two training schools at London Airport are a model for any country in air training.

Mr. Burden: Mr. Burden indicated assent.

Mr. Hunter: I am very pleased to see that the hon. Member for Gillingham nods in agreement.
I and certain of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees, visited B.E.A. last week and met the board. If, therefore, I give the present position of B.E.A., this is not because I do not wish to mention B.O.A.C., but, as a result of meeting the board of B.E.A., I think we are in a position to know the latest figures for that corporation. I feel that B.E.A. is too modest. Indeed, I told the chairman so. B.E.A. has had a remarkable year, and it should advertise its successes so that people can take pride in the great progress which the Corporation has made.
For six years, B.E.A. has made a continuous profit. This summer it made £5 million. During the winter this figure will be reduced because B.E.A. has many aircraft which are not used in the winter but only during the summer holiday period. Even with the winter decline, I am confident that B.E.A. will this year make a profit of not less than £2 million.


We can. I think, take satisfaction in the progress of that Corporation.
Eight years ago B.E.A. carried 1 million passengers. This year it carried 3 million. In eight years the air traffic of B.E.A. has increased 300 per cent. During the summer it carried more passengers than any airline in Europe. Its expansion this year was 18 per cent., while the net average expansion in Europe was 4½ per cent. Outside the United States airlines B.E.A. carried more Americans than any airline in the world. It earned 6 million dollars, roughly £2,500,000. The freight carried by B.E.A. was the largest in Europe.
Turning to B.O.A.C., the picture is not so bright. B.O.A.C. has had difficulties. The hon. Member for Gillingham referred to some of them. It has had trouble with aircraft and delays in the supply of aircraft. There have been delays with the Britannia. All these things have added to its difficulties. Also, on the North Atlantic route, B.O.A.C. meets great competition. The North Atlantic route is serviced by Pan-American Airways, a big competitor of B.O.A.C. I hope that the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary will during the months ahead devote some of their time to B.O.A.C. so that this Corporation, too, may surmount its difficulties and show a profit as B.E.A. has done.
I wish to impress upon the Government the need for cheaper fares. Air travel should be used by all classes of the community. If we plan ahead with the idea of reducing fares, I am quite certain that the expansion of both Corporations will be greatly assisted.
I want now to touch on a subject which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) have often raised, namely, the problem of noise. Around London Airport live hundreds of thousands of people. Many of them came before the airport. Others have come since. Annoyance from noise is a major problem and we must solve it. Complaints come not only from my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) has complained, and so has the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). Very many people are involved.
In reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Twickenham, the Minister said that he had taken a spot check on noise at Willesden. I should like him to take one at Cranford, Bedfont, Feltham, Hanworth, Hounslow and at Hayes and Harlington. Such a check would give the right hon. Gentleman an idea of the extent of the problem which faces us.
I believe that the final solution lies in the hands of the aircraft manufacturers. I want the Minister to be tough with the aircraft manufacturers. He was known for his toughness with the generals whilst Minister of Defence. Will he be tough with the aircraft manufacturers and insist that they embark upon research in engine development and aircraft construction in order to get rid of noise? I want him to be tough also with the operating companies which break regulations. He has set a height above which pilots should fly, and I hope he will see that the regulations are carried out.
The subject which we are discussing tonight is in its early days. I think that it is of great interest to the youngsters. In my constituency some of the young people seem to know all the aircraft. Everyone knows the Boeing because one cannot miss its noise and smoke. They also know the aircraft of other countries, such as the French, Russian and German, and most of them have models. Every weekend thousands of these youngsters go to London Airport to see aircraft landing and taking off. I feel that the young people are taking an enormous interest in civil aviation.
The Parliamentary Secretary stated that the intention of the Bill was to allow the Corporations to expand and to equip themselves with modern aircraft. On those grounds we are only too pleased to support the Second Reading. I feel that this industry is vital not only to my constituency, where so many of my constituents work for the Corporations and also for the independent airline operators, abut also to the country. We want to make the Corporations a great success, for they fly for Britain. B.E.A. is flying all British aircraft and I hope that in the years ahead B.O.A.C. will do the same. Let us make these Corporations a great


success because they stand for Britain in the air.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) always talks with very great sincerity on the question of airlines and we always listen to him with interest. I think that we all sympathise with him on the problem of noise, about which he frequently addresses us. The noise of aircraft is perhaps one of the most pressing problems of the day. Yesterday, I was in a school in my constituency when a lesson had to be halted because of the passage of aircraft overhead.
I am afraid that we may perhaps mislead ourselves if we think that there is an easy scientific solution to the problem, and I am more and more convinced as I look into it that we shall have to come to some compromise with noise. We cannot, however, allow ourselves to be diverted from scientific progress because of our reluctance to bear noise. There must be a compromise, and I feel that it is wrong to assume that there is some easy way by which science can rid us of this penalty of noise. I am afraid that the penalty has to be paid, much as I personally regret having to pay it.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) made a speech of very considerable length. Science now transports us with amazing swiftness over our journeys. The only journey that remains as long as ever is the journey through the speeches of the hon. Member for Govan. When I first heard him fifteen years ago, he was much speedier than he is today.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any reason why, when I am speaking, the hon. Member should inflict himself on the Chamber?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman complained about the facilities of the aerodrome known as Prestwick. I should like to say something about the facilities of an aerodrome which is much more important—Ringway, Manchester. It is an international airport in its own

right, yet it has no alternative runways that are any good at all. The hon. Gentleman talked about his difficulties in getting to Prestwick, but it is true to say that it is often impossible to land even a Viscount on the cross runways at Ringway. Only three weeks ago, I had to wait four-and-a-half hours at London Airport to take off for Manchester. In the end I had to take off in a Dakota because the Viscount could not land on the alternative runways at Ring-way. I say to my right hon. Friend that before money is wasted on Prestwick, it ought to be provided for the genuine, international airport of Ringway.
I should like to support the hon. Gentleman the Member for Govan in his plea that we should deal in a sensible and businesslike way with this question of services which are purely social. If our Air Corporations are expected to operate sensibly and efficiently, we ought not to burden them with social services which involve them in an inevitable loss. We should do as in the case of MacBrayne's. When we want it to run uneconomic services to the Islands, we give it a subsidy for so doing. We cannot judge the efficiency of our Air Corporations if we compel them to provide uneconomic services. I have suggested that each year there ought to be a negotiated amount of money provided by the Government to the Corporations for services which are purely social.

Mr. P. Williams: If there is a negotiation of that nature, why should the contract be reserved for the Corporations alone?

Mr. Shepherd: If the Corporations do not want to operate the services, let someone else operate them.
Let me draw the attention of the House to the very anomalous position of the London-Manchester service. B.E.A. has objected each time an operator has tried to provide a more frequent service between London and Manchester. If we were to say to B.E.A., "You take a subsidy for the uneconomic social services", we could take a much tougher attitude with B.E.A. if it objected to more frequent services between London and Manchester.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: The hon. Member concedes, first, that there is a social value given by the organisations and therefore we should pay subsidies. He then says that we can take a tougher line in given circumstances. Does he propose to apply precisely the same principle to all the industries under private enterprise to which we give subsidies?

Mr. Shepherd: I do not want to enter into that at the moment. I can only say that if B.E.A. does not want to operate a more frequent service between London and Manchester and we deprive it of its argument that it has to provide a social service elsewhere and therefore cannot afford it, we should give the service to someone who is prepared to do it.
I am convinced that there is a bigger potential demand for the London-Manchester service than is now provided by B.E.A. The services are ridiculous. Yesterday, I had to get up at six in the morning to catch the first plane to Manchester. Not everyone wants to get up at six in the morning to catch the first plane to Manchester. The service is run not for the benefit of the people travelling between London and Manchester but for the convenience of B.E.A.'s feeder services, and there is no genuine service between London and Manchester designed to meet the needs of passengers. I think that it is time we put the Corporation in a position in which we could talk to it in serious terms and could get a service like the one between Washington and New York. Obviously, we could not get the loadings which the Americans get, but we could get nearer to them than we do now.
I welcome the Reports particularly where they show some sense of financial responsibility, in that pooling arrangements are to be entered into. It is a most remarkable feature that the aircraft operating industry has never been cost-conscious. It has always preferred to put pride, national pride, before obvious economies. I hope we have come to the end of the era in which national pride cost the taxpayer a great deal of money. I hope, further, that we shall see whether there cannot be more co-operation between our Corporations. I am convinced that had they been two private corporations, there would by now have

been much more co-operation between B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. than exists at present. We all know the reason why there was not co-operation. B.E.A. feared the potential cannibal qualities of B.O.A.C. As, however, the monster no longer displays the same kind of teeth, I hope that we shall see a study made by an outside organisation of potential co-operation between B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. with a view to saving money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) said that it is remarkable that we vote many millions of pounds to the Corporations without very much of a murmur. I do not like the way in which we do it. I wish that these Corporations were in a position to go to the public and offer their own attractive issue and get their funds in that way. I hope the time will come when this is possible. I should like to see the Corporations much further away from Government control than they are now. If one criticises B.O.A.C., as one can and as I shall do presently, the Corporation can properly reply that in many instances it has been interfered with by Ministers and compelled to do things against its commercial judgment which have subsequently proved to be rather disastrous. I look forward to the time when these Corporations will be able to raise their money directly from the public and when they will be free from a lot of petty interference to which they are now subjected by Ministers.
A great danger in providing capital in this way is that people become unconscious of the need to conserve capital. One example is worth mentioning. I am told that the billing of the Corporations on travel agents is extraordinarily lax and that travel agents have in their possession relatively large sums of money which is the property of the Corporations. A private concern struggling for capital would ensure that its billing arrangements were such that these travel agencies did not have money which they could put into building societies for a short time before they paid it over. A private concern would be after the money to save the high cost of capital. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see what can be done to make these Corporations more conscious of the need to save capital. It is surprising how easily capital can be wasted


when it is obtainable as easily as it is by the Corporations.
I want to conclude by making a few words of reference to B.O.A.C. Let me say at once that I have no prejudice against the Corporation or against any of the directors or officers who serve it. Over the years, the Corporation has established a high reputation for British aviation. It has continued with distinction the rôle of Imperial Airways and British Airways and no one can deny that it has added lustre to the name. At the same time, it would be wrong of us in this House not to voice our most serious concern at the position of B.O.A.C. today.
In saying that, I do not refer merely to the large loss which the Corporation sustained last year and which it may make again next year. Losses are sometimes inevitable in a business, and there is no doubt that certain circumstances arising from the business of B.O.A.C. made last year an extremely difficult one for the Corporation; and those difficulties continue in some measure this year. What matters in a big corporation is the morale. I am sorry to say that the morale in B.O.A.C. falls below the level which should obtain in a corporation of its size and standing.
In my experience, B.O.A.C. is nobly served by its staff. It has an excellent staff. It has men and women who are keen upon the service, and the failure of morale in B.O.A.C. is in no way due to any shortcomings of the staff. The failure of B.O.A.C. is the failure of leadership. It is the duty of this House, voting an enormous sum of money, to see that proper leadership is given to the Corporation.
I am not criticising any individual director of B.O.A.C. If we were to go through the qualifications of those gentlemen, particularly the hierarchy of the board, we would see men of excellent character and ability. The truth is that the board as at present constituted does not give the Corporation the leadership, the direction and the drive that it ought to have. There may be personal reasons why the board is less successful than it ought to be. I do not propose to go into any suggestions of that kind. It is nevertheless true, despite the undoubted ability of the individual members of the board and those occupying senior offices,

that the board does not as a whole fulfil the function of giving the leadership that is needed for a great corporation of this kind.
We have tolerated this situation in silence for quite a long time. The time is now overdue for my right hon. Friend to deal with this situation. B.O.A.C. is a vast national asset. Its performance, in all parts of the world, is a matter of supreme importance to us. It is not at the moment as virile and as efficient an organisation as it could be or ought to be. I urge my right hon. Friend not to tolerate for any further protracted period a situation which is manifestly unfair to the taxpayer and certainly unfair to the large staff of B.O.A.C.
On that rather sombre note, I wish to conclude. I hope that those in the Corporations will appreciate that we in the House who take an interest in aviation matters, whether on the benches opposite or on this side, are always seeking to do what we can for the benefit of the Corporations. The fact that we on this side believe that a greater part should be played by the independents does not mean that we want to detract from the prestige and business of the Corporations. We believe that there is room for both and we wish both private and public enterprise in aviation the best of good will.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Paul Williams: There were two remarks in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) which I appreciated very much. Thst first was that we should cease to waste money at Prestwick and should waste it instead at Ringway. That is a point which, I gather, was taken generally by the whole House. Having landed at both these aerodromes, I am not sure where the balance of evil and advantage lies.
My hon Friend's second point, with which I also heartily agree and with which I intend to deal shortly, was his suggestion that the Corporations should be moved further away from Government control. This is indeed at the heart of the relationships between the Corporations and the independents. The thing which I believe the House must decide—and, perhaps, the Government in the near future—is the method by which this situation is to be achieved.
At this stage, as it is the first time we have had an aviation debate in this Parliament, I should declare that I have an interest in this matter. I am not only a director of one of the independent companies, but I am also on the Council of the British Independent Air Transport Association. I hope that this does not make me too prejudiced, but that it gives a sufficient background of information to enable me to talk with some knowledge on this matter.
I now return to the point made by my hon. Friend. The relationship between the Corporations and the independents is a theme which has been running throughout the debate. I am pleased that the old and, frankly, rather tedious battles between the nationalised Corporations and the independents in that sense appear to have disappeared from our discussions, and that both sides of the House now seem to be trying to find a reasonable and equitable distribution of future expansion to satisfy the honour and glory of the Corporations on the one hand and the comfort and, perhaps, tie profitability of the independents on tie other.
During the last two years, I think that we in this House, particularly those of us who take an interest in aviation matters, have seen an appreciable change on both Front Benches about the method by which we may be able to achieve this slight but nevertheless important change. I believe that a great task lies before the Minister of Aviation and his Parliamentary Secretary in carving out a new charter for British civil aviation which will free the enterprise both of the Corporations—for they have enterprise—and of industry as well.
There is a simple proposition, which has been already discussed in this House and elsewhere, for dealing with this matter. Instead of going through the present rigmarole of applications, the Government, perhaps through the introduction of a Bill in the not-too-distant future, should establish a new licensing authority divorced from political considerations, which bases its judgments on economic policy and nothing else. For too long have we taken decisions for or against the Corporation and for or against the independents against the background of political—the word

"prejudice" is perhaps too controversial a word—opinion.
What is needed now is the establishment of a licensing authority with two vital but entirely separate functions. The first function, I suggest, should be to grant operating licences to an operator wishing to ply for hire. We know, because we debated the matter towards the end of July, the safety standards which obtain in civil aviation. All reputable operators wish to see stricter standards applied by the Ministry, and I believe that the Ministry itself would be willing to admit that there are many loopholes in the regulations which allow operators to start operating on far too shallow a foundation. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the first function of any new licensing authority such as I suggest should be to grant operating licences. It should be founded on the background, experience, financial buildup and staff make-up and maintenance ability of any company.
The second task which is equally fundamental and important is the granting of route licences. I suggest that these two functions should be entirely separate. If my right hon. Friend will set his hand to the task of establishing a new licensing authority, separated from political consideration, which bases its judgment on economic and operating efficiency, he will be doing what I suggested was his task, namely, establishing in this Parliament a new charter for British civil aviation.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Richard Collard: If I do not follow my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) and Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) it is because I am not sure how much time is available and because I particularly wish to make two points which I believe are extremely relevant to the finances of the two Corporations. At the outset, I should declare an interest in the aviation industry, although it is not on the operating side.
My two points refer mainly to B.O.A.C. I do not propose to urge my right hon. Friend in any particular direction on these two points but merely to expose two difficulties connected with the finances of B.O.A.C., both of which, I think, are important and certainly


involve expenditure of a great deal of money.
The first is a point which was made rather strongly in the B.O.A.C. Report by the chairman. He spoke of the exceptional burden of expense and responsibility which has fallen on the Corporation in introducing new types of British aircraft into service. Three views can be taken of that problem. The first is that any self-respecting airline of any size and prestige should, from time to time, be capable of introducing new types and of footing the bill. That job is frequently undertaken by the major American airlines. There are arguments on both sides but that is one view that might be taken.
The second view which might be taken is this. It is true that the full development of an aircraft includes probably its first year in airline service. A manufacturer is not able to claim that his aircraft is fully developed until that has happened. It is therefore incumbent on manufacturers either to take a share in the introductory costs or to provide something in the nature of a design guarantee—which is something from which any manufacturer would run very fast—to cover this introductory period.
The third view which might be taken is that in practically no country except, possibly, America can a Government keep out of aviation financially. In almost every country State airlines are being subsidised and assisted by the taxpayer and Government in some way or another. B.E.A. certainly agrees with B.O.A.C. in the matter of introductory costs. I know that the chairman of B.E.A. recently delivered a lecture almost entirely devoted to this subject. Therefore, since subsidy is inevitable, and as it is to some extent a matter of prestige, why should not the Government help?
There are the three approaches to this matter. I would not say that I do not think that the chairman of B.O.A.C. is not guilty of a little special pleading here. There is something to be said for all three points. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is able to say whether he has come to a conclusion on this matter and perhaps can say that all three entities involved—the Corporations, the manufacturers and the Government—will to some extent shoulder this burden.

However, I do not think we can get away from the fact that any self-respecting airline in the world should be prepared from time to time to introduce new types, thereby getting the benefit which will accrue from new traffic, and, at the same time, pay the bill.
Finally on that point, it will be impossible, of course, for either the manufacturers or the Government to come in on these charges unless they are prepared to do the same for the independents. Therefore, if it is a matter of Government assistance it cannot be considered in isolation for the Corporations. It would have to apply to the independents in cases where they buy new British aircraft.
On the question of introductory costs, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) referred to the Britannia. I feel obliged also to refer to it since I am touching on this question. The Britannia is a fine, safe, well-built aircraft which was a bit unlucky in that it had a great deal of engine trouble early on, but not the kind of trouble which affected safety in any way. It was unlucky in that it had a great deal of minor unserviceability which caused delay but at no time brought its safety and reliability into question.
The B.O.A.C.'s attitude from the publicity point of view in the matter of the Britannia delays when first introduced was unbelievably clumsy, in my estimation. The Corporation seemed almost as if it wished to make the point that it was expensive to introduce new British aircraft. In order to make the point and to add weight to it, the Corporation seemed prepared to make the most of the delays which were attendant upon the introduction of the Britannia. I believe that it is capable of statistical proof that delays attendant on the introduction of the Constellation into American airlines and the Stratocruiser into both American airlines and B.O.A.C. were far more considerable and over a far longer period. But the Americans are clever at this sort of thing. The public relations which American airlines and manufacturers have in co-operation when they introduce new aircraft is much cleverer. If B.O.A.C. is to have assistance in the introduction of new British types I hope


that it will look to the kind of publicity that it gives them in the early stages.
My second point refers to the subsidiary airlines of B.O.A.C. I think that I know most of them and I have flown in the aircraft of nearly all of them. I know that the operations of the subsidiaries account for three-fifths of the loss, which is serious. I am not quite sure, and I have never been quite sure, what exactly is the purpose of these subsidiaries. I do not believe that it is the same in all cases. I mean by that the purpose for which B.O.A.C. acquired its interest. Was it political or was it commercial? I suspect that, on the whole, it was both, so that it would generate traffic and concentrate it at the terminal points.
I note with pleasure that the B.O.A.C. Annual Report refers, albeit in inverted commas, to the term "branch line". I make claim, probably without justification, and I would be quite unable to substantiate it, that I originally coined that phrase as applied to airlines. It is the branch lines which generate traffic and concentrate it. The acquisition of branch lines will concentrate traffic for the main airlines and by acquiring an interest or operating or managing an airline overseas the Corporation is perhaps able to safeguard its local flying rights and its airfield rights, and so on.
I suspect, therefore, that the reasons, partly political and partly commercial, are not in principle to be criticised. But in detail one knows that the main losses in the subsidiaries are on the two subsidiaries which have been re-equipped with new types, that is British West Indian Airways and Middle East Airways. Both of recent years were reequipped with Viscounts, and it is interesting and depressing to note that it is precisely those two that have had heavy losses whilst Aden Airways and the Gulf Aviation Company, two airlines admittedly having a monopoly but at the same time owning old types of aircraft, are precisely the only subsidiaries to make an appreciable profit.
I am afraid that B.O.A.C. will be scared off buying new aircraft for its subsidiaries by this circumstance. I suspect that it has already been scared off. Nevertheless, it should take a slightly longer view, because if one takes Aden Airways I very much doubt

whether future Governments of Aden with their airline owned or operated by B.O.A.C. would favour their being equipped with old aircraft. I hope that B.O.A.C. will not be scared off by that unfortunate experience of getting new aircraft for subsidiaries. There was a reason in each case for the heavy loss. I hope, therefore, that in future the Corporation will not say that it does not want to acquire new aircraft for the associates for in the long run both the Corporation and the subsidiaries would suffer if that were so.
I should like to look very quickly at some of the subsidiaries and their fortunes in the past year as set out in the B.O.A.C. Report. Aden Airways showed a profit of £30,000, a very tolerable record considering the difficulties with which the airline is faced but remembering however that it is a monopoly and that it has had no new aircraft to amortise and introduce. The Report on Arab Airways (Jerusalem) Ltd. shows that B.O.A.C.'s interest is to be terminated. That seems not one of the more successful of the Corporation's efforts. It seems to me that there is neither political nor commercial justification for its having taken an interest there and that the Corporation is probably wise to get out.
I have already mentioned the British West Indian Airways. I suspect that it is not just a question of competition in the Caribbean, although that exists, or the American recession, though that occurred, but I wonder whether the standard of efficiency there is as high as it might be. I know that Air Commodore Powell has been appointed to investigate its management. Everyone who knows him knows that the job will be done very vigorously.
The Gulf Aviation Company is one of the few subsidiaries making a profit. It is a very reasonable profit for a small airline of that kind, which I believe is doing a good job with aircraft that could not by any stretch of the imagination be called very modern. As to Malaya, it is only natural that there should be a B.O.A.C. interest there, but since the B.O.A.C. interest in Malayan Airways Limited is shared with Qantas Empire Airways one can only hope that Qantas's tendency to buy American air-


craft will not be reflected in the aircraft with which Malayan Airways will eventually be equipped.
As to Middle East Airlines, the other of the subsidiaries which was reequipped and yet lost a lot of money, I think that it was shrewd judgment on the part of B.O.A.C. to move its Middle East headquarters from Cairo to Beirut and shrewd of the Lebanon to build a good airport. It has benefited from it. It was shrewd judgment, but the company had bad luck because if there is any part of the Middle East where one could reasonably look for stability, peace and quiet it is the Lebanon. Yet it was the recent riots and disturbances there that, more than anything else, brought about this heavy loss.
In Beirut also is the Mid-East Aircraft Servicing Company, in which I suspect that B.O.A.C. is disappointed since it wanted much more than a servicing organisation. It was hoping to introduce a chartering organisation and have a much bigger affair than this company has become. It is showing a loss, I suspect it will continue to do so, and I should be interested to know whether B.O.A.C. really thinks it is worth while going on with it.
As to B.E.A., one can only applaud the modest profit it has made and can only welcome its efforts for cheaper fares. It must be remembered, however, that these are to be introduced on good routes with high load factors. If this were attempted on, for instance, the routes to the Western Isles, it would be more difficult. When there is the traffic it is bold and right to reduce fares. What is difficult and risky is to try to generate new traffic in this way.
I have read in the Press that a strike of the Comet pilots has been narrowly averted. Having passed my life in aviation, I cannot help regretting that airline pilots should consider striking or withdrawing their labour. I know this occurs elsewhere in the world and no doubt it is the right of everybody to withhold his labour. However, I put forward as my firm opinion that airline captains should not do so.
It would be wrong to leave this subject without recognising that in the case of both the Corporations there is a high

standard of operational efficiency, of aircrew skill and a fine record of safety.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Farey-Jones: As this is the first aviation debate in this House since my right hon. Friend became Minister of Aviation, I am glad to have the opportunity to say to him and to his Parliamentary Secretary that we wish them success in the Department. There was never a time in the history of flying when things were quite as difficult as they are at present. Equally, there was never a time of such fantastic opportunity as there will be in the years ahead.
The Minister can, and undoubtedly will, become the architect of a set-up in which aviation will finally come into its own. Many speakers, and half the magazine writers in the world, talk about air transport as if it had reached saturation point. There have been difficulties at London Airport, at Idlewild Airport, in fact, at all world airports, and yet the aircraft of 25 or 50 years from now will not require runways and, therefore, the problem we are now facing will disappear. One invention I am thinking about especially is the utilisation of the Hovercraft in the icy wastes of the world. At present it is in its infancy, but it possesses over ice one of the most remarkable inventive promises of the future.
I shall speak for only a few minutes about something which has not yet happened. I notice that the Bill gives the Corporation additional borrowing and spending powers. As far back as 1934, I took part in what I believed was the first operational survey of the South Atlantic. At that time, we and our Dutch counterparts believed that the Eldorado of air transport was not the North Atlantic. I know that wonderful pioneer, Albert Plesman, believed this. In other words, it is not between London and New York but in Latin America.
So I am delighted to draw the attention of the House to the fact that at last a British airline has got the right type of aircraft and will, within a few weeks from now, commence to operate a service all round Latin America. I am referring to the B.O.A.C. service project, which will operate Comets all round South America. In the early days of 1934, 1935 and 1936, I remember meeting Juan Trippe at Lima in Peru


when we were trying to use Fokker F.7 B's for carrying mining machinery from Santiago up to the mountains. He said that by 1965, when South America would come into its own, there would be so much raw material exported from that country that the traffic between North and South America and Europe would be fantastic. This is the very first time that a British line has had the right type of equipment, and on or about 20th January there will commence the first British regular air service in those countries.
I ask the Minister to use his maximum efforts to ensure that hon. Members from both sides of the House will share this historic flight around Latin America, because only those who see with their own eyes the terrific potential of traffic in that country can possibly believe the market which is available for tapping. Also, I hope the Minister will impress upon B.O.A.C. that it will not be enough merely to run the service around Latin America. There must be a reception department here in London manned by airline operatives who understand the people who will come from Chile, Peru, Brazil, Buenos Aires and Venezuela.
We have spoken in this House recently about the traffic problems of London, but if hon. Members could see cities like Caracas, they would realise how fantastically these have developed in the last fifteen years. The imagination almost boggles at the development and I am sure that within five years, with an efficient service to South America, B.O.A.C. will have struck a real Eldorado in passenger carrying.
I know it is easy to criticise the Corporation, but in B.O.A.C. there are enthusiastic and exceedingly efficient people. One of them happens to live in my division, and I have noticed how keen he is on building up inter-continental traffic. Up to now this House, year after year, has either argued that there should be publicly-owned corporations and no private operators or that there should be one vast corporation. Yet it would be impossible to use all the modern scientific inventions without a multiplicity of people in certain spheres given certain actions to perform in the developments of the next twenty-five years.
As I do not wish to take up the time of the House any longer, I will conclude by saying that I hope the Minister will realise that trade follows the flag. We have in the Comet the most peerless aircraft in the world, and at present the psychological attitude throughout Latin America is switching away from Pan-Americanism and is largely anglophile. So the opportunity is there, I wish the Minister well, and I also wish B.O.A.C. well in the urgent task which is facing it.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Every hon. Member is prepared to give full support to the Bill. We all want the Corporations to flourish and none of us wants to restrict them by lack of funds. We also welcome the Bill for another reason, which is that it affords us an opportunity to discuss the present position and the future of the Air Corporations and possibly to hear something of the Minister's attitude to some of the problems confronting them.
It is timely to have a discussion on the Corporations as we did not debate their Annual Reports. Everyone will agree that it is desirable that these should be regularly reviewed and criticised by Parliament. It is also advantageous to have this discussion today, as the Minister has now been in office for more than two months. We know him to be a hard worker, however much we may disagree with the conclusions at which he sometimes arrives, and we hope that he has now had time to consider some of the problems affecting the Air Corporations and that he will be able to tell us his conclusions on many of them. We hope that they will be more solid than the half-digested, random thoughts put before us by the Minister of Transport last week on some of his problems.
In considering the finances of the Corporations, we must appreciate the background to the aviation industry. It is an extraordinary phenomenon that this world-wide industry, new and growing by leaps and bounds, attracting more customers year by year, is nevertheless losing money, and losing it substantially.
The International Civil Aviation Organisation has published estimates showing that the income of all the airline operators in 1958 was £4 million less than their expenditure and that, taken together,


they lost £57 million. That is a surprising state of affairs in view of the popularity of this great industry and its rapid development, but it is a fact which we have to bear in mind, and appreciate all the more, that in that same year B.E.A. was one of the very few international airlines to make a profit.
That is a good thing, but, knowing the attitude of hon. Members opposite and of the Minister himself, it alarms me a little, as I know that when they see a nationalised industry making a profit, they cast covetous eyes on it and immediately feel that it provides them with an opportunity for part or all of the industry to be transferred to private ownership.

Mr. Burden: We do not get the opportunity very often.

Mr. Strauss: But hon. Members opposite take it when they do, and it was the right hon. Gentleman himself who took it with both hands in the case of the steel industry some years ago.
We all realise that the main factor which makes air transport an unremunerative industry at the moment is the rapid and uneconomic introduction of new types of aircraft long before the old types have had an economic life. That means that the old types must be sold at a heavy capital loss and that large sums of money must be paid out in developing and introducing the new types.
The cause of this rapid introduction of new aircraft arises from the desire of air passengers always to fly by the fastest aircraft. If they find that there is one plane which travels between London and Paris five minutes faster than another, they will flock to the airline giving that more rapid service, deserting the one with the slower service. It is extraordinary how passengers disregard the half-hour and hour waits at airports and the delays in getting from city centres to airports, if only their air journey is five minutes faster.
I wonder whether in his general consideration of the problems of aviation the Minister can hold out any hope, from what he has so far been able to assimilate, that during the coming five or ten years this frantic rush to incorporate new aeroplanes every few years is likely to end. Until it ends, there will continue to be instability in the aviation industry, and it will not be profitable.
Our Corporations have a special handicap to which attention is drawn in their Annual Reports, but which has not been mentioned today. I now draw the Minister's attention to it and ask him whether anything can be done about it. I know that it is something which cannot easily be rectified, and it is a problem which affects all our publicly-owned industries. There is this remark in page 8 of B.O.A.C.'s Report:
… the fact that the Corporation has to remunerate all its capital at fixed rates of interest, quite regardless of the trading results achieved, places it in an unfavourable light in comparison with a limited liability company, or those other airlines part or all of whose capital falls to be remunerated only out of profits.
We know that this is so and that it puts B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. in a particularly unfavourable position.
It is an unfortunate and ridiculous situation and I hope that, when he has had a little more leisure to consider some of the broader aspects of aviation, the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether it is not desirable to transform the heavy loan capital of the Corporations into equity shares, held wholly by the Government, on which dividends will be paid when profits are made but which would not mulct the Corporations of substantial sums of money, which appear as losses in their accounts, when the Corporations are unable to earn profits.
Such a change would remove from the Corporations the burden of interest payments which no other world airline has to bear, at least to the same extent. I put that forward as one suggestion by which the Corporations could be relieved of burdens which they alone among the big international operators have to bear. If they can be relieved of such burdens they plainly should be.
My next question to the right hon. Gentleman is to ask whether he can throw some light on the problems of B.O.A.C.'s associated companies. According to the Report, these companies lost about £3 million last year, a very large sum. That loss may have been inevitable and there may have been good reason for investing in those companies, and it may be that the risk could not have been avoided. However, B.O.A.C. says that it is making a special reappraisal of the situation to consider what should be


done—and I believe that the Ministry of Transport, which was then responsible for B.O.A.C., was brought into it. Has that reappraisal been completed? What are its conclusions? The whole House would be grateful if the Minister could tell us something about this.
Much has been said this afternoon about the low fares policy, to which both Corporations are committed with the full backing of the Government. We all think that that policy is right. B.O.A.C. has purchased planes for the sole purpose of carrying large numbers of people at fares which are well below the existing rates, and B.E.A. is to start a low fares policy on 1st April. Many difficulties have arisen about the introduction of this low fares policy and the House knows something about them. There was the discussion at the I.A.T.A. Conference in Honolulu. The position is now confused to the layman and I should be grateful if the Minister could throw some light on it.
We know that the Minister is able to authorise B.O.A.C to make fare reductions on cabotage routes, that is, routes to our overseas Colonies and Territories. We are told that B.O.A.C. has asked for a reduction of about 20 per cent. on existing fares. Can the Minister confirm that that is so? Does he propose to grant it? If he does, what happens next? Will there be a new I.A.T.A. Conference to consider the situation? What may be the effect on routes to other parts of the world? If we reduce the fares to Nigeria, what about the fares to Ghana? There are all sorts of consequential problems that arise from the introduction of this low fares policy. We should all be grateful if the Minister would give us some information on this subject.
Our Corporations are also suffering unfair damage compared with most other international operators through having to bear, sometimes fully, the development costs of new aeroplanes. Both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have said that that is wrong and that the situation today is such that all or a great part of the heavy development costs should be borne by the Government. B.O.A.C. had to write off about £5 million on the development costs of the Britannia and the Comet IV. In practice the American airlines often pay no development costs, because they buy

aeroplanes which have been ordered by the Government for military purposes.

Sir A. V. Harvey: While not disagreeing with what the right hon. Gentleman says, I would point out that United Airlines, which is probably the largest operator in the world, accepts DC8s as they are without the assumption that they have any military life. I assume that that company is in exactly the same position as the Corporation.

Mr. Strauss: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that that company is an exception. Normally, operators in the United States buy planes the development costs of which have been paid for by the Government. In this country the full development costs must be borne by the operator. That puts a burden on our operators which their competitors do not have to meet. There are very few operators in the world who have to bear that burden. Only seven out of the word's 200 airlines sponsor the development costs of aeroplanes they buy. B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are among the seven.
That puts the Corporations at a great disadvantage compared with their competitors. There is a strong case for reconsidering the position, particularly in view of American competition. America's position in air transport is very strong today because during the war America developed transport planes while we did not. That gave them a great initial advantage. The result is that today America has 35 per cent. of the international air traffic compared with our 14 per cent. The Corporations are now facing a further disadvantage by having to bear the development costs of new aircraft which their competitors do not bear.

Mr. Burden: Unfortunately, this has been the established practice ever since the end of the war. When the right hon. Gentleman's Government were in power they ordered two prototypes. That practice has continued. The Americans order eighteen prototypes and get the "bugs" sorted out before they go into service with the armed forces.

Mr. Strauss: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. In this country the Government have been responsible until recently for aircraft development, and now they are putting the burden


more and more on to the Corporations. In the past development was often paid for indirectly by the Government.
In support of the contention I am making I want to quote, not my views, but those of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries. Paragraph 68 of its Report says:
Your Committee emphasise that the cost of developing new aircraft at present appears to fall too heavily on the Corporations, and places them at a disadvantage compared with their foreign competitors who use American aircraft.
I hope that the Government will consider this. It does not matter whether this is a new policy or an old policy. The Minister has no doubt considered the Report of the Select Committee very carefully and it may be that he will now be able to give us his decision about whether he is prepared to carry out this recommendation or suggestion.
Many hon. Members have asked about the domestic routes flown by B.E.A. and which cost the Corporation substantial sums of money—about £300,000 a year. I disagree with the recommendation of the Select Committee on this point. It is perfectly proper that B.E.A., in running European services, should bear the burden of running this domestic service. I do not think that there is any case for suggesting that this service should be subsidised. Indeed, B.E.A. agrees it should not be. B.E.A. is prepared to carry the service itself out of the profits that it hopes to make in running the European service as a whole. Where there is a transport service, which runs on many profitable routes, the operating company should bear the cost of running unprofitable routes where there is a public need for those routes to be run.
Any suggestion that domestic routes should be run by somebody other than B.E.A. would be disastrous. It would do enormous damage to B.E.A. It gets 25 per cent. of its revenue from these domestic routes and it would inflict severe damage on B.E.A. if the routes were run by private companies on a subsidy basis or anything of that kind. The present position should continue.
There is, however, a strong case for paying a subsidy on another service to which the Select Committee draws attention. That is the investment by B.O.A.C. in the Kuwait Airlines. At the express request of the Government, this Corporation was asked to invest money in this company, which involved it in a loss of £150,000 last year. The Select Committee was absolutely right in saying that if a nationalised industry which is statutorily required to pay its way is to be used as an instrument of foreign policy it should not be required to bear consequential losses as a result. I invite the Minister to tell us that he agrees firmly with that common-sense recommendation and that the Corporations will be recompensed when they make losses doing something which they are requested to do in pursuance of foreign policy.
I come now to the vexed and contentious question of the independent airlines. No one questions the fact that these operators have played and are playing an important part in the British civil air transport industry. No one doubts that they have shown great initiative in the past, and that they provide a valuable service to the public. On the whole they are doing very well. They are increasing their customers. B.E.A. reports that in 1958 their expansion rate was two and a half times that of the Corporations, and it also reports that if troopings are included the independent companies take about one-third of the total of British air transport, in terms of passenger-miles.
So it is wrong to say that these people are having a raw deal. It is wrong to accept the view of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) that they are being squeezed out or kept in a static position. That was the impression he gave.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman could not have been listening very clearly to what I said. I pointed out that the main complaint was that the independent companies had no security. They were working an associate agreement which could be cut off at short notice. I said that if they are to invest in new equipment they must be allowed a period of time to enable them to depreciate that equipment.

Mr. Strauss: Perhaps it was another hon. Member who said that they had no room to live or expand.

Mr. Burden: I was the guilty party, to the extent that I said that they were offered no security at all.

Mr. Strauss: They are able to flourish remarkably well in this position of insecurity in which it is alleged they exist. I do not agree that they are in an insecure position. They know that, given ordinary good behaviour, they will continue to flourish. If they do not know that, they are extraordinarily stupid. If they want any further certainty in the matter they have a right to appeal to the Government to assure them that, if they are doing a decent job, within the confines permitted to them, they will be allowed to continue to operate. In fact, they know this quite well. If that were not so they would not be developing their airlines.
These companies have no complaint. They are doing well, and are profitably expanding. I am very glad to see it. They are giving a good service. Nevertheless, they are always demanding fresh rights and submitting to the Government proposals which, although at first sight appearing attractive, would in practice hamper the Corporations' activities and undermine their viability. In the past the Government have given a sympathetic ear to the requests of these private operators, and now we want to know to what extent the present Minister's bias—if he has any—will lead him to favour the demands of the independent companies when these will clearly damage the Corporations.

Mr. P. Williams: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to a point I made about the establishment of a licensing authority. If a licensing authority of the kind to which I referred were set up there could be no guarantee that the independents would get any traffic at all; it would be for the licensing authority to decide.

Mr. Strauss: I was not referring to the question of a licensing authority. We are told that we are to have one. Whether that is a good or bad thing will depend upon the terms of reference under which it will work, and we do not yet know what they are; we are waiting for the Minister's Bill.
But we all know that the independent companies are demanding to be allowed to fly on new routes at much lower fares than the Corporations' present ones. If such demands are acceded to the independent companies will derive much benefit, whereas grave damage will be done to the Corporations. It is always easy for an operator, whether in air transport or anything else, to charge cheap fares and to have its vehicles 100 per cent. filled if it runs an irregular service. It can always take traffic away from the scheduled transport company, which has to run regular services.
That is what happened with the pirate buses in London, many years ago. Those buses were able to charge fares much lower than those fixed by the London General Omnibus Company, so creaming off many passengers who would otherwise have travelled on the Company's buses. Similar action attempted by the independents should be resisted, as it would result in harming the Corporations, and making them less able to meet the intense world competition they always have to face.
An hon. Gentleman opposite said that we all agree that in this problem of the Corporations v. the private operators it is not now a question of one against the other, but of co-operation between them, in seeing how best they can fit in with each other. Where such co-operation is possible it should be given, and a great deal is given already. Nevertheless, there is an inherent conflict which has always existed and which is evidenced by the present request of the private operators to fly lines at cheap fares on scheduled routes. The problem is not really one of public enterprise v. private enterprise; it is one of common sense. In the United States, where all the airlines are privately owned and profit-making, or rather profit-seeking, the air traffic control vigorously resists any fare-cutting application by one operator which may undermine the soundness of the chosen operator for any route. All we ask is that the Minister should be equally firm and sensible. We hope that he will be.
If he takes that line the independents will have nothing to complain of. They already have some advantages not possessed by the Corporations. For instance,


they are allowed to do trooping and the Corporations are not. [Laughter.] I do not know why that remark should be met with hilarity. It was a concession to private companies which we thought was wholly wrong.
Can the Minister give us some confirmation that he will strongly resist all concessions to private operators which are likely to lead to a weakening of the position and to an undermining of the viability of the Corporations? I hope he will be able to do that categorically today. The Minister must realise, as we all do, that on the welfare of the Corporations there also depends, to an increasing degree, now that the provision of military planes is running down, the welfare of the aircraft industry. This industry, with exports of £150 million a year, earns three times more in foreign currency than do the two Corporations. It is, therefore, in the highest national interest that the Government should do everything in their power to protect the Corporations, whose record is one of remarkable enterprise and initiative, from all attempts—whether emanating from abroad or at home—to undermine their prosperity.
The Government should indeed give them all the positive assistance available to them in securing, maintaining and increasing their position in world aviation. We hope that the Minister will be able to assure us today that this is in fact the policy he intends to pursue, in deeds as well as in words.

7.52 p.m.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Duncan Sandys): We have listened to a number of speeches by hon. Members who can speak with considerable authority on aviation matters and who obviously care deeply about the success and future of British aviation, both the Corporations and the independents.
I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on the way in which he made his opening at the Opposition Dispatch Box on the subject of aviation. I think we all felt that he brought to it an objective and constructive mind, which is very welcome in debates of this kind. It is also with pleasure that I find the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) as my opposite number once again. He

referred a moment ago to the fact that we had an agreeable time a few years ago discussing the denationalisation of the steel industry. Although we were not 100 per cent. in agreement on all points, nevertheless we got on very amicably. I hope it will be the same in our debates on aviation.
This debate, although probably few people in the Galleries will have suspected it, is concerned with borrowing powers for B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) that it would be much better if the Airways Corporations could raise their own loans from the public on the market. But I am afraid that that time has not yet come, although it is not impossible that we shall get to that point at some time in the future. The Parliamentary Secretary gave the House very full explanations of the precise purpose and scope of the Bill, and I do not propose to go over that again. Hon. Members have raised a wide variety of questions, and I hope they will allow me the necessary time to answer as many of those as I can.
The debate centred upon the finances of the Corporations. I felt that the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees rather assigned himself the rôle of defending counsel for the Corporations, but I do not think he need adopt that line. We all want to look at this quite objectively. We all want the Corporations to succeed, if for no other reason than because so much public money has been invested in them and because the prestige and reputation of British aviation and our airlines are dependent on the success and reputation of the Corporations as flag carriers of British aircraft. I suggest we are all on the same side in this debate and facing these issues.
Many hon. Members, naturally, referred to the £5 million loss on its operating account incurred by B.O.A.C., as shown in its last Report. That loss was incurred after paying interest of £3½ million on its borrowed capital and after having set aside £6 million to cover depreciation in value of aircraft and other assets. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall suggested—I know he was quoting views expressed elsewhere—that some part of the loan capital should be turned into equity shares and, he added, held wholly by the Government.
There might be something in the suggestion if the equity shares were not wholly held by the Government and were sold to the public. If the equity shares were to be held wholly by the Government, it does not seem to me that there would be very much difference in the situation. If a dividend is passed to the Government and a little more is borrowed from the Treasury, it does not seem that the Corporation would be very much better off. From the point of view of the Corporations presentationally, it would be more attractive not to show a deficit and to pass the dividend. But, from the point of view of the House of Commons, it is much better that any losses which occur should be brought out clearly before the House so that we can see where we stand.
B.O.A.C., like other international airlines, was hit by the general slowing down in the expansion of air traffic in 1957 and 1958. In addition to that general trend, there were a number of special reasons for the exceptional losses incurred by B.O.A.C. last year. The Corporation's £5 million loss included a loss of more than £3 million made by the associated companies. A number of hon. Members have referred to that. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Collard) made a number of interesting remarks about the associated companies.
Of the £3 million losses by the associated companies, £1·7 million was incurred by the Middle East airlines. I think it quite fair to attribute that in very large measure to the revolution and other disturbances which took place in the Lebanon and the generally disturbed situation in that area In addition, the British West Indian Airways, a subsidiary company of B.O.A.C., lost more than £500,000. Another serious item on the debit side, to which no allusion was made in the debate today, was the unfortunate strike of B.O.A.C. engineers at London Airport last year, which cost the Corporation over £1 million. In addition to the £5 million loss above the line, the B.O.A.C. accounts for 1958–59 show a deficit for the year below the line of £6½ million. I do not think anybody referred to that during the course of the debate, but it is worth mentioning. Most of this sum is attributable to the

extra cost of introducing the Britannias and the Comet IVs into service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) asked whether there was a penalty clause in the Britannia contract, and this is the information which I should like to give him on that point. The B.O.A.C. contract with the Bristol Aeroplane Company did include provision for damages for deficiencies found in the aircraft or if the aircraft were late in delivery. These provisions were enforced, and a substantial sum was paid by the Bristol Company, but did not fully compensate B.O.A.C. for the loss which it had incurred. That is the position.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall and his hon. Friend were right to remind the House that the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries in its recent Report expressed the view that the cost of introducing these new aircraft appeared to fall too heavily on the Corporations; and the Committee thereby raised the question whether the Government should relieve the Corporations of some part of this burden. I am not yet in a position to state what are the Government's reactions to this section of the Select Committee's Report, but I can assure the House that we are giving the matter very careful consideration.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees said that in order for an air line to be profitable it must have the right aircraft at the right time, and I think we can all agree with him on that. Undoubtedly, in this respect, B.O.A.C. has been unfortunate. In the first place, there were the fearful Comet I disasters. But let us be quite clear about this: without those disasters, B.O.A.C. would have been well ahead of the rest of the world. Later, the Corporation suffered again from the late deliveries of the Britannias, about which I have just spoken. These, together with the general recession in air traffic, account to a very large extent for B.O.A.C.'s failure to increase its revenue at the rate which was forecast when the last Borrowing Powers Bill was introduced in 1956. Nevertheless, the present position of the Corporation is much healthier. The Britannias are now in full service, and the Comet IVs have been delivered


ahead of time. They have earned an enviable reputation throughout the world for reliability.
As the right hon. Member for Vauxhall said, one of the most serious financial worries of all long-distance airlines today is the rate at which they are having to re-equip themselves with new types of aircraft. This has been forced upon them by the keenness of competition. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that passengers liked to travel by the fastest plane, even if it was only five minutes faster than another. I think that is quite true, but I would emphasise that it is not only the faster plane which is impelling airlines to make these changes. It is the fact that jet aircraft are cheaper to operate. They are more economical to run, and it is very difficult to compete with other airlines if one's operating costs are heavier than theirs.
On the other hand, the price of the change-over from one aircraft to another is very serious indeed. The result of this is that piston-engined aircraft have become to a large extent obsolete for long haul routes. All the leading air lines are being obliged by economic pressure, as well as the preference of passengers, to get rid of their piston-engined aircraft long before their useful life is exhausted. I have discussed this matter with those concerned, and I think that they have very little option if they are not to lose their position in relation to their competitors. The only way out that I can see is that there should be an international agreement not to bring into operation new types of aircraft, but I do not see how that can be done. We might do something about fares, but about aircraft I should not have thought that it was possible.
Another effect of these developments is that the price which can be obtained for the sale of the older types has fallen well below that which had previously been allowed for in the depreciation arrangements. That adds further to the financial problem.
I was asked specifically about the resale of the D.C.7C.s. B.O.A.C. bought D.C.7C.s as a stop-gap, and intended selling them when the Boeing became available in 1960 and 1961. In view of

the dramatic fall in the value of piston-engined aircraft, which all airlines misjudged, it might conceivably—I am not announcing any decision—be better to continue to use some of these aircraft for a longer period in subsidiary rôles. All possibilities will naturally have to be considered by the Corporations and by the Government.
In this connection, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield asked whether B.O.A.C. was contemplating ordering the Britannic freighter aircraft. The Corporation is not at present planning to order freighter aircraft. One of the reasons is that the capacity for freight in passenger carrying aircraft is increasing all the time. It will increase greatly when we have got the Vanguards and the V.C.10s.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees asked me to say something about the future prospects of B.O.A.C., about which he said a good deal himself. If I can add anything to that, I will. As the House may have noticed, in the various jobs which I have had, I have always been very chary about making rosy predictions about the future, except perhaps in one instance, in regard to voluntary recruiting, when I felt that the creation of an atmosphere of confidence was essential to success. Therefore, I am a little hesitant about prophesying for B.O.A.C. sunshine round the corner. Nevertheless, I think it would not be fair to B.O.A.C. if I were to say nothing about the more favourable trends which have undoubtedly been developing during this year.
The Corporation has informed me that the traffic carried between March and November was 25 per cent. greater than during the same months of last year. Perhaps one of the most encouraging signs is that during 1959 B.O.A.C. has increased its share of the important North Atlantic traffic. In fact, for the first time, it has outstripped Trans-World Airways, and is now second only to Pan-American. As a result, B.O.A.C.'s own services during the last seven months made an operating profit of nearly £1 million after charging interest on capital.
My hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and Norfolk. Central criticised the losses of the associate companies of B.O.A.C. The


Corporation is, of course, very much alive to this problem, and has been taking active steps to improve the financial position of the associate companies. A programme of retrenchment and reorganisation has been put in hand, the object of which is to get British West Indies Airways on to a profitable basis within a period of three years. The improved political situation in the Middle East during recent months has made it possible for Middle East Air Lines to operate in more normal conditions; and in consequence an improvement in its financial results can reasonably be expected. For these and other reasons, B.O.A.C. hopes during the current year that the losses of the associate companies will be reduced to about £500,000, compared with £3 million last ear. These figures were given to me by the Corporation. All of us want to see the associate companies show a balance on the right side; and every effort must be made to achieve that.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall implied that the Corporations were being obliged to carry on uneconomic services through their associate companies at the request of the Government for political purposes, and he thought that the Government should help them in that. I do not want to go into detail, but there may be one case in which it might be argued that that situation has arisen. Broadly, if that situation should arise again, the Government will be prepared to consider the position. I want to emphasise that the Corporations are convinced that, if a small loss is unavoidable on these subsidiary services, it is worth accepting it economically in view of the volume of traffic which they feed into the B.O.A.C. trunk lines and which might otherwise go to their competitors.

Mr. Strauss: What about the Kuwait service?

Mr. Sandys: That was the service which I had in mind.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield referred to B.O.A.C.'s high engineering costs. This is one of the important factors which have contributed to the Corporation's disappointing financial results. No doubt compared with other airlines, B.O.A.C.

has for some time been seriously overstaffed on the engineering side.
The Corporation is well aware of the problem and has been taking steps to deal with it. It has substantially reorganised its engineering base at London Airport so that it can be run efficiently with an appreciably smaller staff. Reductions in personnel have to be effected gradually if great friction and difficulties are to be avoided. As the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees pointed out, the engineering staff of B.O.A.C. has been reduced during the past two years from about 8,000 to 6,500 and by 1961 the Corporation hopes to cut it down to 5,500. This has been reflected in the Corporation's engineering costs. In 1957, these costs were 10½d. per capacity-ton-mile. In 1958, they fell to 9d., and in the current year they are expected to drop to 7d. The Corporation aims to bring them down next year to 5½d., which would compare well with the corresponding costs of its leading competitors.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle said, B.O.A.C. has established a fine reputation among the travelling public throughout the world. I think that I have said enough to show that there are good and solid reasons for expecting that, when the current year ends, the Corporation's financial results will show an appreciable improvement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) stressed the importance of the services to South America. I am looking forward to going on the inaugural flight of B.O.A.C. to South America at the end of January.
I have dealt at some length with the position of B.O.A.C. Naturally, concern was expressed primarily about B.O.A.C. because of its financial position, but I should like to say a few words about B.E.A., where the financial picture is very different. B.E.A. has declared a small profit for a number of years and has begun in a small way to build up reserves from revenue. Last year its profit amounted to about £200,000, which was quite creditable considering the world-wide recession in air traffic and also considering that B.E.A. is providing a number of uneconomic services.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) referred to this and particularly to the services to the Scottish


Highlands and Islands. The service to the Isle of Man comes into the same category. He asked whether it was right for there to be a subsidy for the sea service to the Scottish Islands and no subsidy for the air service. The sea subsidy is intended to be confined to the shipping concerns which provide only services to the Islands. In other words, these are concerns which have no opportunity of making good their losses on other routes. A subsidy to B.E.A., on the other hand, would imply giving a subsidy to a Corporation which is able to offset these losses on its other routes.

Mr. Rankin: The road services are also subsidised.

Mr. Sandys: I was thinking of the sea service. I think that the hon. Member had that in mind.
The fact remains that these services to the Scottish Highlands and Islands and to the Isle of Man, whether we like it or not, are being subsidised. We have to be clear about that. While I am not pronouncing any view on the subject today, I think there is something to be said for bringing subsidies out into the open. That is what the Select Committee undoubtedly had in mind. I therefore assure the House that we shall consider most carefully the Select Committee's observations on this point.
In the first half of the current financial year, which included the favourable summer months, B.E.A. increased its traffic by about 15 per cent. and managed to fill its aircraft—this is perhaps the most encouraging feature—up to 73 per cent. of capacity, compared with 65 per cent. last year. As a result, during the period B.E.A. has made a profit of about £4½ million. This will undoubtedly be reduced by losses during the slack winter months; but I shall be surprised if the Corporation is not able to show an appreciable increase in its profits for the year as a whole. I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield congratulated B.E.A., for we can be well pleased with the progress of B.E.A. and its financial results, which compare well with those of any other major airlines.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall and others asked about the Government's policy on fares. I have referred to the

improving prospects for both Corporations, but we must not underrate the formidable problems which face them both in the near future. Most of the new aircraft which will come into service in the next two or three years will carry about 50 per cent. more passengers. The Vanguard, which B.E.A. is introducing next summer, carries 120 passengers compared with 60 in the largest Viscount. The new planes are also faster and, consequently, capable of doing more flights in a given time. In order to make economic use of this greatly increased carrying capacity, a large increase in air traffic is essential.
I am convinced that the only way to achieve this is by boldly cutting fares. Experience has shown that a reduction in fares quickly attracts new passengers. For example, on the North Atlantic route the introduction of the economy fares has increased traffic by as much as 25 per cent.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees asked about the international deadlock over fares. The recent annual conference of the International Air Transport Association—I.A.T.A.—in Honolulu settled next year's fares for services in Europe, between Europe and South America, and between North and South America. These included a number of reduced fares in Europe asked for by B.E.A. However, the conference separated without reaching agreement on fares for the rest of the world. This was due, largely, to B.O.A.C.'s very proper insistence on the introduction of economy fares.
Before the conference we gave warning that, if international agreement could not be obtained on the introduction of economy fares generally, we would have to consider introducing them separately on the cabotage routes between Britain and British overseas territories, for which international agreement is not required. After carefully considering the whole matter, I have decided to authorise B.O.A.C. to introduce economy fares on the cabotage routes to the West Indies, Africa and the Far East. These fares will vary between 10 and 20 per cent. below existing tourist fares.
I am consulting the colonial authorities and other airlines concerned about the exact level of fares to be charged on each of these routes and on the timing


of their introduction. Before reaching this decision, I discussed the matter with the independent airlines principally interested, namely those operating on routes to East and Central Africa; and I am taking steps to ensure that the reduction in B.O.A.C.'s fares shall not unfairly affect the colonial coach routes which these independent companies have so successfully opened up.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees asked about the very low fares which some independent companies would like to introduce. This is quite distinct from the economy fares about which I have spoken. Proposals for very low fares, below economy rates, naturally affect the interests of the Corporations. I am, therefore, examining the problem with the independents and the Corporations together; and I hope that we shall be able to work out solutions which will give some reasonable satisfaction to both parties.
Since the Bill is concerned solely with the Airways Corporations, the debate has naturally centred upon their affairs, though a number of hon. Gentlemen have referred to the position of the independent companies. The independents have, I consider, shown great initiative and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham rightly said, have been prepared to bear considerable financial risks. They have, in their special way, played a most valuable part in expanding the market for air travel, in pioneering new routes and in developing cheap fare services. They form a most useful element in the pattern of British aviation, and I assure the House that I shall do all I can reasonably to encourage their further development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) referred to the new licensing authority which we propose to set up. This will, I hope, help to settle dispassionately differences which may arise between the Corporations and the independents. Naturally, it is not my intention to do anything which will undermine the position of

B.O.A.C. or B.E.A., in which so much public money has been invested. They must continue to be Britain's principal flag carriers on the main air routes of the world, but there is scope also for the independents to expand. I believe that there is an honourable place in our system for the Corporations and the independents; and I am confident that together they can win for British aviation a worthy share of the expanding air traffic of the world.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Legh.]

Committee To-morrow.

AIR CORPORATIONS [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the borrowing powers of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British European Airways Corporation, it is expedient to authorise such increases—

(a) in the sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund under section ten of the Air Corporations Act, 1949, being sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling guarantees given under that section; and
(b) in the sums paid into the Exchequer under the said section ten, being sums received by way of repayment of any sums so issued, or by way of interest thereon.

as may be attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session raising the limit on money borrowed by the British Overseas Airways Corporation from one hundred and sixty million pounds to one hundred and eighty million pounds and the limit on money borrowed by the British European Airways Corporation from sixty million pounds to ninety-five million pounds.—[Mr. Rippon.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

SUPPLY [7th December]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLE MENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60; ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTI MATE, 1959–60

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL

CLASS IX

VOTE 6A. OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR SCIENCE

1. That a sum, not exceeding £4,080, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Science.

VOTE 7. ATOMIC ENERGY

2. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the salaries and expenses of the Atomic Energy Office and for payments to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in respect of expenses in connection with the supply of atomic energy and radioactive substances, including research and development, inspection, storage, disposal and capital and ancillary services related thereto, and for subscriptions to international organisations.

CLASS I

VOTE 4. TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS

3. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the salaries and other expenses in the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments, the additional salary payable to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the salaries and other expenses of his office arising from his responsibility for the co-ordination of official information, and the salary and expenses of the Minister without Portfolio.

VOTE 5A. PRIVY SEAL OFFICE

4. That a sum, not exceeding £4,650, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1960, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal.

CLASS VI

VOTE 10. MINISTRY OF AVIATION

5. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1960, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Aviation for the administration of supply (including research and development, production, inspection, storage, disposal and capital and ancillary services related thereto); for administrative services in connection with civil aviation (including the salaries and expenses of the Air Transport Advisory Council) and the aircraft, light metals and electronics industries; and for miscellaneous services.

CLASS IX

VOTE 1. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT

6. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,110, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1960, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Transport, including the salaries and expenses of the Coastguard, the Transport Tribunal, the Air Transport Advisory Council, and the Inland Waterways Redevelopment Committee, subscriptions to international organisations, and sundry other services.

ARMY

WAR OFFICE (SUPPLY)

7. That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1960, for the salaries and expenses incurred by the War Office for the administration of supply (including research and development, inspection, storage, disposal and capital and ancillary services related thereto); and for miscellaneous services.

WAR OFFICE (PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES)

8. That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1960, for expenditure incurred by the War Office on the supply of munitions, common-user and other articles for the Government service, and on miscellaneous supply.

ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES

9. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1960, for the expenses of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories.

Resolutions agreed to.

POST OFFICE (UNITED KINGDOM- ICELAND CABLE)

8.28 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): I beg to move,
That the Agreement, dated 30th November, 1959, between Her Majesty's Postmaster-General, the Danish General Directorate of Posts and Telegraphs, the Icelandic General Directorate of Posts and Telegraphs, and the Great Northern Telegraph Company Limited, for the provision and maintenance of a submarine telecommunications cable system between the United Kingdom and Iceland by way of the Faroe Islands, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.
The purpose of this Agreement is to define the arrangements for the construction and maintenance of a new submarine cable system known as "Scotice", linking the United Kingdom with the Faroes and Iceland. It is planned to complete the project before the end of 1961. The new cable will provide 24 channels for telephone conversations, each of which can be broken down by technical means so as to give 24 telegraph circuits. The cable will meet the foreseeable needs for telephone and telegraph communication between the United Kingdom, the Faroes and Iceland for many years to come.
At Iceland, the cable system will join up with another new cable linking Iceland with Greenland and Newfoundland. That cable system is planned for the end of 1962, and will be provided by the Great Northern Telegraph Company of Denmark, the Icelandic General Directorate of Posts and Telegraphs, and the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation. As well as meeting communication needs generally, the complete cable system will be of particular value to the civil aviation authorities.
I would like to mention just three points in regard to the provisions of the Agreement now before the House. First, under the Agreement, we will have a 50 per cent. share in the section of the cable between the United Kingdom and the Faroes, and will own the cable station at Gairloch in Scotland. As Members will be aware. this half ownership in the section as far as the first foreign landing point follows general practice.
Second, as the major partner in terms of ownership, the Great Northern Tele-

graph Company will, under the Agreement, have primary responsibility for the construction of the cable. The Agreement provides however, for all specifications and contracts to be approved by the Postmaster-General, who will also have joint responsibility with the other partners for inspection and acceptance of the equipment. The House will be glad to know that it is the intention that both the cable and the repeaters should be manufactured in the United Kingdom, and that the cable system should be laid by our cable-ship "Monarch".
Third, the Great Northern Telegraph Company will also have a co-ordinating responsibility for maintenance, but the maintenance arrangements for the United Kingdom-Faroes section will require the agreement of the Postmaster-General. Maintenance costs will be borne among the partners in accordance with their respective shares in the ownership.
Hon. Members will appreciate that the Scotice cable is the latest example of the rapid progress now being made in the provision of modern telephone and telegraph communication by means of submarine cables, a field in which this country is making a striking contribution.
I hope that the House will approve this Agreement, which represents a notable example of international cooperation in the provision of communications.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: First, I think that I am in order in congratulating the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend on not making the same mistake as her right hon Friend's predecessor did a few months ago when, introducing a similar Agreement, he contravened Standing Orders 87 and 88. He then said:
What I have done … is to start a searching inquiry into why we, or perhaps I should say I, made this mistake, and I am trying to create machinery so that we shall not make the same mistake again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1959; Vol. 609, c. 300.]
No doubt the hon. Lady remembers the then Postmaster-General, now Minister of Transport, apologising to the House for contravening those two Standing Orders. It is essential that we should be fully conversant with why that happened, and should know to what extent we can be assured that it will not happen again.
The House has been asked to recognise and approve two Agreements within five months. There is an intensive drive going ahead. More cables are being laid, and new devices are being added and installed with a view to increasing the number of speech channels even in the present cables. Round-the-world communication, including, particularly, a Commonwealth cable, is more urgently required than ever before, and, indeed, much of it is already planned.
Coaxial cables, with new channel equipment invented by our own Post Office engineers, are in great demand, and when we think of the future, and especially of the requirements of television channels, we realise that this telecommunications section of Post Office activity will be increasingly busy. We must, therefore, be assured this evening that no further contraventions of Standing Orders 87 and 88—dealing with telegraphic contracts—will be made and, indeed, that any gap has already been plugged.
This is, of course, an agreed Measure, and I doubt if there is anyone here this evening who would wish to postpone the operative date of the Agreement. However, there are a few questions which I must ask in order that we may be more fully conversant with the contents of it. First of all, what is the type of cable? Do we start in this effort with a cable similar to that used in the Atlantic, made in the United Kingdom but with additional technical equipment to enable full capacity to be reached at a later date? For example, the Atlantic cable was initially designed to take 29 speech channels, but, with added shore-based technical equipment, we are now to have 74 speech channels. Briefly, is the cable to be laid with a set number of speech channels, either with or without added shore-based equipment, which cannot be increased, or will there be available reserve capacity to be used later if demand requires it?
Secondly, if new shore-based equipment, such as that put into use recently in the last Agreement, is to be used—I refer particularly to the equipment called the new channel equipment which our Post Office engineers developed and which was responsible for boosting the old cables by 33⅓ per cent.—what

arrangements are being made with Iceland if she wishes to use that device?
The Americans have in this work surpassed even our invention because they managed with a technical device to boost the existing cables by 50 per cent. Can the Minister tell us whether we are to benefit from that invention? I know that our new channel equipment which was invented to boost the speech channels by 33⅓ per cent. cost only £35,000 whereas the American equipment, which is known as T.A.S.I.—Time Assignment Speech Interpolation—cost £500,000 in order to boost the present speech channels by 50 per cent. Nevertheless, even though the American invention is relatively costly, are we contemplating any agreement with the United States of America to avail ourselves of this advanced technique? If not, can we be assured that we are pressing ahead with this type of invention and that Post Office engineers will not be skimped on finance so as to slow down their progress in research?
Is any provision being made in this cable between Scotland and Iceland for a television channel? This is only the first, and we are to have one from Iceland to Canada. What arrangements have been made? I do not know whether it is possible for shore-based equipment to help in this respect, but, if my information is correct, it would be necessary for a repeater to be put in the cable every six miles before we could have a television channel. I should think that it would have been economic and wise to insert the repeaters at the outset rather than have virtually to relay the cable later on to put in the repeaters.
I am informed that a new type of cable has been developed which is sheathed with polythene and not, as the old cables were, with wires. This, obviously, will lead to substantial reductions in cost. The cable will be lighter to handle and easier to use. It will, indeed, be a boon to the cable ship crews. I should like to know whether this cable we are to lay from Scotland to Iceland is of the new type.
No doubt the hon. Lady knows that a new cable ship is urgently required. "Monarch" seems to be overworked. I am very pleased that the Minister said


that "Monarch" would be used to lay this cable, too. I understand that there is a new vessel on the stocks, but it does not seem to be coming along quite on schedule. Perhaps the hon. Lady could give us some indication about progress there and say whether we can expect it to come into service next year.
I have posed several rather technical questions. Nevertheless, they are important and, in view of the number of agreements which will come before the House, there is a need to have a fuller understanding about this type of agreement. I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to give a full reply.

8.39 p.m.

Miss Pike: I can assure the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) that we have now ensured that arrangements are such in the Department that we shall not in future make the mistake which we made on a previous occasion. We have, I believe, kept all the rules magnificently on this occasion, and we intend to continue in that way.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the type of cable which will be in use. I will answer him as fully as I can. The cable we are using is similar to the present type used in the Atlantic cable. It is initially equipped for 24 channels, but an increase in capacity could later be arranged if required. I understand that it is a cable of the armoured type. The polythene covered cable which was developed by the Post Office is not suitable for this particular journey because it is more suitable for use in deep water. In fact, it is used only in deep water.
For the cable between this country and Iceland, the armoured type is more suitable. It is the repeatered type. It will incorporate amplifying devices known technically as repeaters. I do not need to explain the technicalities to the hon. Member for Barnsley, but for the benefit of other hon. Members I would say that these repeaters are placed at intervals along the length of the cable and are necessary to boost the speech. The design is such as to allow communications in both directions over a single cable. The cable if used only for telephony would provide for 24 conversations to be held simultaneously. In

practice, part of the available capacity will be used to provide telegraph services.
The third question asked was about the design of the equipment used by the Americans. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are leading to some extent in this field and pressing ahead with our research. We do not wish to duplicate research in any way, and we are working in very close co-operation with all the other people concerned in the laying of the cable. It think it will be found in this instance that we have gained the confidence of everyone, and they are, in fact, our cables and repeaters which are being used.
With regard to television, there will be no television channel. It would be perfectly feasible to design the cable to carry television programmes between the United Kingdom and Iceland, but at a greatly increased cost. It would be possible, should there be a demand for a service of this kind, to transmit films of important events within a few hours of their happening. This system has been used on the transatlantic telephone cable, notably on the occasion of the Queen's visit to Canada.
I was asked about the progress being made with the new cable-laying ship. The "Monarch" is doing great work at the present time and we are pressing ahead with a new cable-laying ship. The order for the ship has been placed and progress so far suggests that it should be possible to improve on the estimated date of mid-1961 for completion.
I hope that I have covered the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and that the House will give the Agreement its approval.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Agreement, dated 30th November, 1959, between Her Majesty's Postmaster General, the Danish General Directorate of Posts and Telegraphs, the Icelandic General Directorate of Posts and Telegraphs, and the Great Northern Telegraph Company Limited, for the provision and maintenance of a submarine telecommunication cable system between the United Kingdom and Iceland by way of the Faroe Islands, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.

NATIONAL INSURANCE SCHEME (NON-PARTICIPATION REGU- LATIONS)

8.43 p.m.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Insurance (Non-participation—Certificates) Regulations, 1959 (S.I., 1959, No. 1860), dated 4th November 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th November, be annulled.
Those of us interested in pensions appreciate that we are fortunate that the business of the House has been accelerated and that, therefore, this matter comes on a little earlier than was expected.
As I do not want to waste the time of the House, I would suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we also discuss our Motion relating to the Second Statutory Instrument—
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Insurance (Non-participation—Benefits and Schemes) Regulations, 1959 (S.I., 1959, No. 1861), dated 4th November, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th November, be annulled.
We had a word with the Minister about that beforehand.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther Grey): I think that would be convenient for the whole House.

Mr. Crossman: The two sets of Regulations cover a most important aspect of the Government's new National Insurance policy; indeed, they cover the whole of the mechanics of contracting out. If the House were to debate the two together, it would be possible to have a useful discussion on the actual working of this unprecedented change in our social services.
I want to concentrate mainly on the second of these two Statutory Instruments, No. 1861, because there is one particular point in it to which we want to call attention from this side of the House, namely, the problem of notification, on which the Minister will recall the two sides were in basic disagreement during the Committee stage. I fear that our disagreement and alarm has been somewhat increased since we saw the

detailed provisions which the Minister has made for informing the millions of employees concerned about this issue of their schemes being contracted out. Therefore, we want specially to concentrate our attention on that problem. The first Statutory Instrument, No. 1860, which deals with benefits and regulations—

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): When the hon. Member said No. 1861, I think he meant No. 1860.

Mr. Crossman: I am sorry, I have to reverse the order. The one which deals with non-notification is No. 1860. The one which deals with benefits and with what equivalence means is No. 1861.
This huge new scheme will come into force in April, 1961. If we asked the people of the country what they knew, I would be very surprised if one person in ten was aware that a complete reform of our whole system of pensions is due to come into force.

Mr. H. Hynd: One person in a hundred.

Mr. Crossman: I congratulate the Government on their brilliant success in concealing this fact from the electorate throughout the three weeks of the election. Throughout those three weeks, one might have believed that there was a Labour Party scheme called national superannuation and that, apart from that, the Government were promising simply that pensions would be very good indeed but certainly not suggesting that contributions would be substantially raised and that millions of people already were committed by the Government to paying a new kind of graduated contribution in addition to the flat rate contribution. This was successfully concealed from the people until after the election. It is time that we drew attention to the coming of this great change. Despite the Government's modesty, we have decided tonight to give a little publicity to their scheme by trying to discuss it in detail.
It is not true that people are inattentive to the scheme. I was looking at the Guardian today and was amused to discover an interesting advertisement called "The New State Pension Scheme" from


the Noble Lowndes Pension Service. The advertisement states:
The new State pension scheme and its integration with existing private pension funds and schemes is a subject of vital concern to every employer at this time. Expert advice, on a professional fee basis, can be obtained from the Noble Lowndes Pension Service".
Then we have an elaborate description of what the Service will do—and how right it is. Employers will have to make some important decisions in the coming months about whether they should contract their schemes out of the Government scheme or whether it will pay them to stay in. This is of vital interest to an employer and will justify him in raying to Messrs. Noble Lowndes a large fee, which will be chargeable against tax, to get the best advice.
It is equally true that employees will need good advice on what they should do about the Government scheme, except that nobody will give them good advice because, as far as possible, the employees will not be told about it. Our central point of criticism, to which we want to call attention and to protest against this evening, is the deliberate intention, indicated clearly in these Statutory Instruments, to make the minimum modification possible and to see that practically no precautions are taken to ensure that, before it is too late, anybody understands the decision which is to be taken on his behalf by his employer.
The millions of workers, who are as vitally affected as the employers, are in equal need of advice. I am hoping that their trade unions will give them that advice, but I shall indicate tonight how difficult it will be to give the right advice, because in many cases it will be difficult to calculate whether it pays a person to go into the Government scheme or to go out of it.
I am sure that everybody here, unlike ordinary citizens outside, knows the Government's scheme by heart. But suppose there is anyone who does not know about the scheme which will come into force in April, 1961. Let me remind him that from 1st April, 1961, anyone who earns over £9 a week will start paying a new unprecedented tax. If he is within the £9 to £15 wage band he will pay a tax. It is not a tax on those who earn £15 or £9. If a person earns over £9 a week he will pay 4½ per cent.

each week on the 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th £ and on the sixteenth £ he will be free again. A person will pay on that band. He will pay 4½ per cent. in addition to his flat-rate contribution, and the employer also will pay 4½ per cent.
I need not remind the House of the princely returns. The Daily Express stated that we would have a £5 pension, but did not add that this would happen in the year 2005. A young man of 18 earning £15 a week who in 1961 joins the scheme will, by 2005, draw 21s. in addition to his 50s. flat-rate pension, which will be about £2 10s. below the National Assistance level at that time. It may be said that this is too remote. The Minister said on a previous occasion, "We do not intend the scheme to last as long as that. We shall change everything long before that", and he has told us how many times in the last ten years the rates have been changed four times over.
Now let us take the case of a man who is aged 50. He is concerned with his pension. If we earns £15 a week he will pay 4½ per cent. each week on £6 of his wages and, as a result, will get 13s. extra after 15 years, again far below the National Assistance level which will obtain at that time. However, I shall be out of order if I discuss that aspect of the scheme. Therefore, let us remind ourselves of what might be called the inspiring framework which the Minister has set and see how clearly it has been his desire not to encourage people to enter the Government scheme but to get out of it. This is why the arrangements for contracting out are so important.
This scheme is almost unique in social service history. The aim of the Government is to persuade as many people as possible to get out of it if they conceivably can. We have discussed at great length the organisation for contracting out of this new State scheme. We on this side would not suggest for a moment that we do not like the idea of contracting out, because we invented it ourselves in our own scheme two years ago. We were very tender and delicate at that time. It was before the Minister made up his mind whether contracting out was impossible and was one of the typical things that a skiffle group of professors


invented or something sensible that he would do. However, he came down in general on the side of contracting out and took a great many of our ideas about contracting out.
Contracting out is essential if it is proposed to add on top of a flat-rate pension a graded pension. It is clear to me that we should not insist that those already in a good graded private scheme shall in addition be made to contribute to a State scheme. Therefore, a State scheme is supplementary to good private schemes. This was the basis of our proposition. This common principle was accepted by the Minister, and we emphasise that in criticising the Regulations we do not criticise the principle that any great advance in pensions will involve contracting out. The better the State schemes the stronger the case for having genuine contracting out between the two schemes. We do not criticise the Government for taking over this principle.
When I look at the first of the Statutory Instruments, I congratulate the Government on accepting two basic principles which seem to us to be of the very greatest importance in reform of the pension law. The first concerns the principle of the transferability of pension rights. This is something for which trade unionists have fought and have demanded for many years, and it is of the greatest importance in achieving that mobility of labour after middle-age for which some of us feel a pressing need. It is difficult for anyone over 45 years of age to change his job if he is in a superannuation job because he is afraid of losing superannuation rights. There is, therefore, for the first time a chance for middle-aged people to change their job and to get on in life if there are arrangements for the transferability of their pension rights so that they can carry them with them as they move from job to job.
One of the great things for which we were trying to work in national superannuation was a scheme under which pension rights would be transferable in future.
Now I would not go so far as to say that the Government have conceded the substance of what we demand, for their own scheme is so miserable that nothing

worth transferring is transferred. But it is of enormous importance that the principle of transferability is indicated in these Regulations, which are to ensure that, supposing one is in a private scheme and the employer contracts one out of the State scheme, then at least if one changes jobs, one carries with one pension rights equivalent to the maximum which anybody could have earned under the Government scheme.
The Minister was perfectly right, in drawing up his own scheme, to insist that anybody in a private scheme should be entitled on changing his job to reach the top level of the Government scheme, as though he were earning £15 a week and had been credited with that. Therefore, any private scheme must provide that everybody, if only earning £10 a week, must have the equivalent rate of those earning £15 a week in the Government scheme. This happens from 1st April, 1961, to everybody earning over £9. Those earning under £9 are, of course, unfortunate in their pension rights. Everybody will be earning pension rights which are to some extent transferable, except for a miserable proportion. But there will come a time when another Government will, no doubt, take this principle and apply it properly.
I believe that even this Government, when they actually approach 1st April, 1961, will not dare to present the people with such miserable benefits and will be compelled to improve their scheme by making pension rights more worth having than they are at present. Still, there is the principle laid down.
Secondly, I congratulate the Minister on the principle that pension rights cannot be taken away from a person merely because he absconds with the money in the till or misbehaves with the manager's wife or does anything else which is highly reprehensible. It is a principle in superannuation that when one has earned the sum one has earned it and what one does afterwards does not take it away. It is deferred pay, and therefore a person cannot be disqualified from having earned it by anything he does afterwards.
I was extremely glad in reading the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee to find that when certain recommendations were made


to the Committee that there might be written into the regulations that a person should not be allowed to take his pension rights with him if he misbehaved, the Committee indignantly refuted this. I was glad also that the Minister was not in any way disposed to give way to the demands for this provision. People suffering from mental disorder, of course, cannot be said to he capable of taking their pension rights with them, but the rights are absolutely the rights of the person. They are his to be transferred, and that is what we want.
When we see a scheme involving what is regarded as equivalency, however, we bitterly regret that the Minister did not insist on widows' pensions being written in as something which every private employer had to provide if the pension was to be regarded as equivalent and suitable for contracting out of the State scheme. It is a grave mistake, and I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would relent. I am glad to see that the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance is here. I am sure that she will support me in this. Her predecessor, too, had a soft heart when it came to widows' rights. It is ridiculous that this provision is not made and that private schemes should not be required to have these rights attached to them.
It is outrageous that when one is trying to get an equivalent to a State scheme which has widow's benefits one should not insist that private schemes with the right to contract out of a State scheme should include a widow's pension, however small. I would not mind how miserable was the pension which the Minister gave because all we can hope to get from him is the principle. Therefore, we would like to see the principle of the widow's benefit included in the scheme.
Now I come to my central point of criticism of the Minister. It was a point of criticism which was made by a minority of those who were advising him on the National Insurance Advisory Committee. As the House will appreciate, all these Regulations have to be submitted to that Committee for comment. It is an excellent system, under which an early draft is submitted, the Committee makes its comments, then there is a re-draft. We are grateful for

the complete candour with which the Minister tells us what has been done, so that we can see the effect of the Committee.
There were many improvements brought in by the Committee, but there was one major point on which it concentrated, and that was the problem of notification. I will explain to the House why we on this side regard that as a matter of first-rate importance. In our view, if we are to have contracting out, if we are to have a social service provided by the private employer—and it is extraordinary to allow a private employer to be responsible for providing part of the social service—then in our view there must be a freedom of choice for each person between the private and the public sector. At least there must be some form of option. We wrote into our original plan that each individual should be free to choose either to join the State scheme or to stay in his employer's scheme.
In the course of the Committee stage of the Bill we were convinced by the Minister's extremely powerful arguments that our original proposition was unworkable for a simple reason. This was that if we were to insist on individual option between a private scheme and a State scheme we should wreck contracting out because no employer could calculate whether the group would contract out or not, and the trade unions concerned would be extremely unhappy at the idea that "awkward cusses" could make it impossible to get a scheme put through.
Therefore, we accepted the view that we had put forward a fine abstract argument but had not clothed it in practical form and we had to give up the idea that each individual could have freedom of choice. Then it came to us clearly that if each individual had not got freedom of choice, a veto must be exercised by the employees on the employer if they objected strongly. We believe that before an employer can contract all his employees out of a State scheme, the employees must have a veto. I do not say that they can make the decision, because it is his money and his scheme, so clearly he must decide. However, we put it to the Minister that he could so decide only with a potential veto by his employees if they objected strongly.
We suggested that the way this could be made practicable was that, first, the employer must announce the scheme in sufficient time, giving every individual in the factory or office the details in writing. Secondly, we said that it should be given in a comparative form so that each individual concerned could see the State scheme and the private scheme side by side and so be able to judge for himself how much he gained from being a member of either. This seemed to us to be reasonable. We said that if, after a time, there was a clear indication that a clear majority of the employees were dissatisfied, there should be a ballot, and that if a clear majority voted against the scheme, the scheme could not contract out.
We do not think that this is adventurous, because it is extremely unlikely that this situation would arise unless there was a great outrage being committed. However, we could not see how one could establish firmly the right of the individuals employed without that kind of procedure—first, full notification; secondly, notification to include an objective comparison on the two schemes side by side; thirdly, sufficient time for the employees to discuss it and to form a general opinion; fourthly, in the event of a strong demand, the possibility of a ballot.
We put this forward in Committee, and we were defeated on every ground. We were told that it could not be done and that the decision must rest with the employer. However, at least we got the assurance, so we thought, that even if there were not to be consultation and an active veto, at least the employer would have laid upon him the obligation to notify his employees in such a way that each of them would have a good chance of making his view felt.
That was the view put to the Minister by the minority of his Advisory Committee. We do not know who the minority was, but we learn from page 6 of the Report of the Advisory Committee on National Insurance (Non-Participation—Certificates) Regulations, 1959:
Some members of the Committee consider that employers should be required to give individual notice to their employees or that the Registrar should be required to ensure that all practicable steps to notify them had been taken.

That is perfectly reasonable.
The majority … take the view, however, that employers should be given a choice of methods. …
The methods are given and are:
(a) notifying the employees individually in writing; or (b) posting up written notices; or (c) making such other provision as may be appropriate. …
The third of those should be noted.
To my amazement, the Minister has preferred the majority report and in his Regulations has ruled that there are three things which employers can do. If they bother to do so, they can kindly notify employees. If they do not bother to do that, they can put the notification on the notice board. If they do not bother to do that, they can do anything else which they consider appropriate and which passes the Registrar. My hon. Friends will want to discuss the functions of the Registrar, about which none of us knows very much.
It is a complete fallacy to suppose that the Registrar and his staff will be able to go round policing the efficiency of thousands of private pension schemes. I warn the Minister that if he says that we have no need to worry and that the Registrar will look after the matter and see that employers take appropriate proceedings, I shall not believe him. I do not see how this unfortunate man, who will be very heavily engaged with all his other responsibilities, can possibly be asked to police the activities of employers. It is our case that the whole burden of the responsibility should be put on the shoulders of the employers and that they should be bluntly told that it is their job to ensure that their employees receive notice. If it can be shown that each employee has not received notice, the scheme should not be permitted to contract out. That, in a nutshell, is the case which we are presenting.
This is not some abstract problem, because in 18 months several million people will be affected by these proposals. The Minister should realise that we are making an enormous experiment which we all want to lead to a greatly improved pensions scheme. I cannot pretend to speak as an expert on factory or office organisation, but when in doubt in these cases, the wisest thing is to err on the side of caution, on the side of ensuring that the notification is given.
The Minister has behaved to his Advisory Committee in a peculiar way. There are other things which the Committee suggests. For instance, it says that it might be a good thing if the employer is required to give three months' notice to his employees. Three months is not a very long time, and yet the Minister has insisted on cutting the time to one month on the ground that he cannot get his scheme through by April, 1961, if three months' notice is given. He has to explain to the House how that can be true and how one month's notification, without the writing of a letter, is any notification. The employer is simply to be allowed to contract out without any kind of control by tie employee, and yet he is contracting out the pension rights of the employee. It must not be forgotten that although the pension rights may be small, after the contracting out the employees will not be entitled to the State pension element of their pension. We are therefore enabling this employer to decide that his employees shall not share in the State benefit.
We believe in the principle that it is wrong to allow an employer to do that. We shall change this if we have any power to do so. There is still a chance to take these Regulations back and at least take the advice of the minority on this Advisory Committee who warned the Minister and said, "Be careful."
We do not want to start this kind of scheme off with the suspicion that the Government are on the side of the employers; that the Government want employers to have an easy time, and that they do not want employers to be worried by questions from their men. I ask the Minister to reconsider this.
The question I pose is: "Suppose you or I were members of a pension scheme. Suppose we were being treated in this way and were not notified." We would think that we had been outraged if we w ere not notified in writing about our pension rights. Everybody wants to feel that they belong to the kind of scheme w here they are treated as though they matter. The essence of the new superannuation scheme is to treat every citizen as though he or she really matters. If we allow employers to contract out of the scheme we should err on the side of giving employees more care and not less.

The least that can be done is to write them a letter telling them what is being done.
It is no good saying that that cannot be done. People get wages every week and a printed notice could be inserted in the wage packet explaining the scheme. All these contributions have to be recorded on the P.A.Y.E. card, in a special new line. The idea that the terms of the contract could not be communicated to the people is ridiculous.
Why does the Minister not do it? I will give the answer. It is because he wants this scheme to be popular with employers and give them the minimum amount of bother. He wants to ensure that the private insurance companies and those who run private schemes shall not be bothered if they decide to get out of the Government swindle.
We all know that if one stays in the Government scheme one will then have roughly four-fifths of the 9 per cent. of one's contribution taken away to pay for the deficit on the other pensions. We know that people who stay in the Government scheme will pay a deuce of a lot and get little out of it. If the Civil Service had been going into this scheme we should have heard a lot more about it.
It is because contracting out has been made outrageously easy that this scheme has been able to go through with so little protest. Everybody who matters in life—everybody who has a salary—will contract out.
When the Minister says that it is all right for anybody to contract out, I say, "Yes, I hope that they will", but we are here establishing principles of social legislation. We are laying down that employers shall have the right to contract their people out without adequate notification. This cannot be allowed to pass without a protest from hon. Members on this side of the House against the giving of that kind of power to employers and against this kind of bias in favour of the employer. It will cast doubts on the scheme and will start the scheme off in a thoroughly bad way.
I ask the Minister even now to take these Regulations back, consult his Advisory Committee, recast the Regulations, and at least write into them an insistence that every employer shall notify in writing every employee before


the employer applies to contract out of the scheme.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Prentice: I beg to second the Motion.
The crux of the situation is that in the opinion of my hon. Friends the individual worker is entitled to have a real say in decisions that will affect his immediate standard of living and his ultimate security. We believe that the only satisfactory way of achieving this is on the basis of the Amendment that we tabled during the Committee stage of the Bill. Given the fact that we were defeated in our effort to make Amendments, and given also the basis of contracting out contained in the Bill as it emerged from the Committee and eventually had its Third Reading in the House, we still think that these Regulations are rather poor and disappointing.
I want to concentrate upon two points which we find specially unsatisfactory. The first relates to the question of consulting the relevant trade unions or other associations of the workers concerned. This question was considered by the Insurance Advisory Committee, which said:
we see difficulties in the proposal that the employer should be required to give notice to all the associations representing his employees. An employer does not necessarily know what associations every employee belongs to and, if he were placed under a duty to notify them, an inadvertent omission on his part might later cast doubts on the validity of a certificate which had been issued to him.
I am surprised that the Minister should have accepted that and not found some formula for consulting the unions concerned. It is silly to say that because there might be the odd case of an individual belonging to an association which an employer did not know about we should throw overboard the whole principle of consulting trade unions.
The trade unions are the proper people to advise their members on matters affecting them at their place of work. This is precisely the kind of problems on which trade unions can build up experience and advise their members. In this sort of situation within an industry one firm might make a decision to contract out and, later on, when another firm was involved, the experience of the first

might be of value. Trade unions can acquire an experience and knowledge which they can pass on to their members in other firms. It may be said that individual members can take up these matters with their trade unions, but the time limit here is only one month. If members raise such matters at their branch meetings they have to be passed through the trade union machinery, which is such that delays inevitably occur, in which case there might not be time for effective action to be taken.

Mr. H. Hynd: It is not so much a question of delay in the trade union machinery; the unions will probably have to take legal and technical advice.

Mr. Prentice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. Delay is naturally caused through having to go through the proper channels and take the advice to which my hon. Friend refers. If the Minister sticks to the time limit of one month he will have to provide for the automatic notification of any such decision to trade unions. One would have thought that in any legislation of this nature there would be a provision that trade unions would be consulted. They were included in connection with the main National Insurance Act and Industrial Injuries Act of 1946, and it is extraordinary that in 1959 they should be left out.
My right hon. Friend concentrated upon the question of giving individual notification to every person concerned. It seems to me, as it did to him, that it is fantastic to put the Regulations in this form and to say that the employer may notify individually, or may post up a notice, or may do something else. If he posts up a notice the knowledge of its contents may not reach everybody in every case. It depends upon the nature of the work—what kind of place it is and whether some people work away from the main centre. We may be told that people will talk about it among themselves, but this sometimes takes time to get round. A man may be shy or reserved and he may not talk to his fellow workers. On the other hand, he may be a surly chap whose fellow-workers do not talk to him. Such a worker may have no time in which to make his views known.
The third alternative, of adopting any other method which appears appropriate, is surely the most vague and unsatisfactory. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Registrar can be effective in enforcing this requirement.

Mr. E. Fernyhongh: He might put an advertisement in the Financial Times.

Mr. Prentice: The Minister may tell us, as he said in Committee on the Bll more than once, that good and reasonable employers will, of course, take steps effectively to notify their work-people. When we are legislating on something like this we should not concern ourselves with the good nor with the average employer. We have to look at what is done by the bad employer and there are still employers in the country who regard their workpeople as so many hirelings who are mollycoddled by their unions and who would do the bare minimum to help their employees. Therefore, it seems essential to legislate clearly, and the only satisfactory thing is to see that every person affected will get individual notification.
This is something which will affect the individual. In the first instance it will affect his take-home pay. If he is involved in the Government scheme there will be the extra deduction of 5s. ld. a week and that will make a difference to him in deciding whether he can pay or not. It will affect the question of whether he is to go on paying into a scheme run by his employers. He will be affected in regard to the pension which he will eventually draw, and he is entitled to know what sort of bargain he may have under one scheme or the other. It will affect previous pension rights which he may have built up.
These are important personal factors bearing on a man's standard of living and his personal security. Therefore, he should be told individually how he stands and have an effective way of making his views known.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I wish to support the plea for the annulment of these Regulations. There are many points of importance, but one which I should like to mention is that with which my hon. Friend the Member

for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) has already dealt. That is the question of the very wide scope given to the employer in explaining to, advising, or merely telling his employees what his intentions are. He can write to them, he can put a notice on the notice board, or advise them in any other way that seems suitable.
That might seem all right if the employer were to deal with all his employees in the same way. It ought to be understood when we are judging the wide scope given to employers that the employer is permitted under the Act to take out of the scheme as many or as few of his employees as he likes. If it had been a question of the employers having to decide that all employees should be in or all employees should be out, we should have been presented with a very different position. I suggest that it must seem very suspicious when the employer is given wide scope to pick and choose between employees and when he is also given as much scope as is necessary to pick and choose between the methods by which he shall advise them.
He might, for example, decide to contract his staff out and the whole matter might be kept dark from the rest of his employees. Under the Regulations he can, if he wishes, notify his staff by means of a personal letter. Then, unless it leaks out by someone talking about it, none of the workpeople need know and the staff can be given special treatment. He might want to bind more closely to him his skilled men. He might single out the skilled men and advise them by letter of his intentions. Nobody else need know anything at all about it. He might pick out his younger men and treat them in one way, leaving the older men to be treated in another way. He can pick and choose, and in fact, he can adopt the practice—and this was mentioned in the Committee when the matter was discussed—of setting off one group of his employees against another group.
Every hon. Member must see that this would be a very serious practice if it were widely adopted. An employer can set one group of employees off against another by giving them special treatment, and he has all the means here at his disposal of disguising the matter and hiding the method which he follows. I


have no doubt that in time these things will leak out.

Mr. H. Hynd: He might contract out non-unionists.

Mr. Lawson: He can, if he likes, pick out non-unionists and give them special treatment, and he can put the unionists in the scheme. He can divide his employees according to age, or according to the amount they are receiving.
In fact, employers have already been advised—and the insurance people have already sent out their recommendations advising them—to pick and choose in this way. They have been advised that those with incomes above a certain level should be taken out of the scheme, while those with incomes below a certain level should be kept in. Firms with employees of mixed incomes might treat them in different ways. The facilities are here for any kind of "divide and rule" tactics to set one set of employees against the other.
This provision, made with unlimited scope for deciding by which method persons are to be advised, seems to me to fit in very closely indeed with what some of us, when we were discussing the matter, thought was a very dangerous tendency to be observed in this Act. Certainly, if there were some very good reason preventing an employer from adopting a single uniform method, if there were some good reason why this should not be so, I would say "Let us have it". If, for example, we were to adopt a method of ensuring that everyone received advice by means of notices being put up, and everyone received individual advice about and details of the scheme, I personally would see no difficulty in this matter at all.
I recall that in my own constituency a firm employing, not in my own constituency alone, but partly there and in other parts of the west of Scotland, some 17,000 people, sent out, not one notice, but three specially printed booklets describing the proposed superannuation scheme which it was to adopt. Every one of those 17,000 people got copies of those three booklets. If that could be done there, I cannot see why it cannot be done in other cases.
If the Minister is able to remove the very deep suspicion that this wide choice

of method is deliberately designed to fit in with the wide choice of facilities to put people in or not—that this one must fit in with the other—I shall be happy. But what we are asking for here is that these Regulations should be taken back or annulled, and that, at the very least, those measures which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East put forward should be incorporated. Certainly this choice that is given of any means that he likes should be limited.
I would remind my hon. Friends from Scotland that the Registrar is to be appointed by no one who is responsible for Scotland, but entirely by someone with responsibilities in England, who will have no voice in respect of Scotland. We are having forced upon us something from England.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: We are dealing tonight with Regulations which, according to the Minister's own estimates, will affect the position of 5 million employed persons during the next twelve months or so. We were told in the Government Actuary's Report and other papers on the Act that it was estimated that 2½ million people in private employment would contract out—or, rather, that the employers of those 2½ million people would decide to contract them out. In addition, there are another 2½ million people in the public service, and the assumption has been that a large proportion of them will be contracted out.
This is a most important matter, because for the £15-a-week man it may mean the difference between his paying 2s. 10d. a week tax towards the emerging cost of the present level of benefit under the National Insurance scheme and his paying 5s. 1d. a week tax. It can make a difference between 2d. in the £ taxation on total income and 4d. in the £ taxation, according to whether the man is contracted in or contracted out. If a man is in the scheme and pays a full contribution on £15 a week, it will cost him another 5s. 1d., whereas if he is outside the scheme it will cost him 2s. 10d., above what is needed to meet the ordinary flat-rate pension.
I am not quite so worried about contracting out at the beginning as I am about the fact that the Regulations cover not only contracting out but the revocation of contracting out at a later stage. It is possible that at present many people will have no objection to being contracted out and will indeed be pleased that their employer has contracted them out, because we are discussing a wage-related pension which provides that a man who has contributed on the basis of earnings of £15 a week for forty-seven years, which will be well outside the lifetime of the vast majority having a voice in this matter, will have a pension of £2 1s. a week more than the present level of the National Insurance benefit when he retires in forty-seven years' time. I think that most employees hope that their employers will contract them out.
On the other hand, there may be new legislation and changes may be made in the present National Insurance flat-rate pension. There may even be changes, although they could have been provided for in the Act of this year, in the wage-related pension. Many employers may find in a year or two that although it was beneficial to them to contract out at the beginning of the scheme, because of subsequent changes in the scheme—and we know that a number of changes have taken place in the ordinary National Insurance scheme since 1946—it appears that perhaps they ought not to have contracted out, and they will apply for the certificate of contracting out to be revoked.
All this will make a difference to the employees' contributions, and I want to make sure that they are given adequate notice of what is to happen to them. We are told that there are to be three different methods which the employer can adopt when he is making an application for a certificate or making an application for the certificate to be revoked. The first involves giving notice in writing, and that is the one which we hope employers will use.
I think that the majority of good employers will use it, but I want to ask the Minister a question about this. In the Second Schedule of the National Insurance Act, 1959, it is laid down that the employer for this purpose of all teachers in the employment of local education authorities shall be the Minister of Education and the employer of all

local government officers shall be the Minister of Housing and Local Government. There is a list of these employees, but I do not want to weary the House by reading them all out. The point is that in certain instances the employer is to be a Minister.
The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance no doubt consulted his colleagues, who are to have responsibility under the Second Schedule, before he made the Regulations. May we have an assurance from him on behalf of his colleagues that when they decide whether to make an application to contract out, they will use Regulation 3 (a) and will notify in writing all the people affected or will take some action through the local education authorities, the local authorities and other bodies concerned to make sure that the individuals affected receive in writing notice of the decision which is being taken about their future pension prospects?
I am sure we all agree that the best method of dealing with this matter is by individual notice in writing being given to the man. In that case it is essential that where the Government are considered to be the employer we should have an early undertaking that they will use what we all believe to be the best method of giving notice in these matters and will set an example to private employers. I hope that the Minister will give the undertaking this evening that where Ministers of the Crown, Government Departments and Government officials are concerned, a good example will be set to employers and all persons affected will be notified in writing as provided for in Regulation 3 (a). I hope also that when the Minister speaks later he will tell us that he will see to it personally, or use whatever influence he has to ensure, that private employers use this procedure as well.
It is also stated that it can be done by posting up a written notice in a conspicuous place. I have seen notice boards, as no doubt have many other hon. Members. It is quite possible that a notice board giving this particularly important information will be posted next door to the results of last week's football swindle which took place in the factory, the fact that table tennis matches are to be played between certain firms on such and such a date and a whole mass of other information which is


usually posted on notice boards and surrounded by many other things which, as the months pass, become flea-bitten. Can we be certain that just because it is on the board people will look at it? Are we to expect that the Registrar has to satisfy himself that a particular notice board was in a prominent place and that people did in fact look at it regularly? I repeat that I have seen notice boards which, I am sure, no one in the employment of the firm concerned had looked at for years. Very many of them are in out-of-the-way places. Has the Registrar to satisfy himself that the notice board was in a position where people could look at it?
There is also the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) that it is possible under the scheme for an employer to contract out certain grades of his staff and not others. Unless an individual written notice is given to the people affected it will be very difficult for them, by looking at a notice on a board, to try to work out whether they are affected or whether it is Bill Jones who works on the bench at the other end of the workshop. Employees will not be able to tell with any great detail or accuracy from a notice board. A written pronouncement should be given to them personally.
I notice also that it will probably be all right for the employer to make an announcement over the factory Tannoy system that he intends to contract out a whole number of people. I presume that is a method of letting them know. If an employer can go to the Registrar and say that the announcement was made over the Tannoy system every morning for six days, presumably that will be satisfactory, or perhaps he will walk round and tap employees on the shoulder, saying, "I am contracting you out, but leaving in the bloke next door."
All these methods would appear from the Regulations to be all right. The employer can go to the Registrar and say that notification has been effected, but how on earth is the Registrar to check that the job has been done? Unless he receives objections from employees that they have not been properly notified, I cannot see how he is to check whether the notifications have been given. If the employees have not been

properly notified they will not realise that they can go to the Registrar and complain that they have not been notified. It is a vicious circle.
The only way in which it can be properly dealt with is by ensuring that every employee affected is given proper written notice by his employer. If there are employers in this country whose organisation is so bad that it is impossible for them to give a written notice to every member of their staff they ought not to be employers; they are completely inefficient, and that is one of the reasons why production in this country is not increasing as fast as it should. Every employer should be in a position to give written notice to the individual members of his staff likely to be affected by this decision. I hope the Minister will have another look at that Regulation.
I am prepared, however, to accept that it may well be difficult in certain circumstances to ensure that notification is given to all the trade unions involved in any particular industry. It is true that employers may not always be aware of all the unions involved. I hope that the Minister when he speaks later this evening will say that it is his wish that employers will do their utmost to ensure that those unions known to them are informed of any decision. If the right hon. Gentleman says that, it will encourage employers.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also undertake that, in any instance where Ministers of the Crown are to take these decisions, they will definitely give the information to unions which are known to them to have an interest in the staff involved. It is essential for Ministers of the Crown to give a lead in this respect and to show that they are good employers. If we cannot have good actions from Ministers of the Crown, we cannot expect them from private employers.
I wish to point out one worrying point in the Regulations and in the Act. It seems a long time ago since we did our best in Committee to help the Minister improve this piece of legislation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Mr. Boyd-Carpenter indicated dissent.

Mr. Reynolds: Apparently the Minister does not agree with the word "improve", but we did not get much help from him.


We could have improved the Measure much more if the Minister had accepted many of our Amendments. Nevertheless, we have the Act. It seems a long time since I looked at it and I may have become a little rusty on its details, but it appears to me that it will be possible for an employer to contract out, then twelve or eighteen months later change his mind and ask for the certificate to be revoked, then twelve months after that apply for another certificate to enable him to contract out again, and then two or three years later have that certificate revoked. I do not say that many employers are likely to do that, but it would have been better to have set a certain minimum period during which application might be made for revocation of the certificate once it has been issued. For purely administrative reasons I would not have thought it good that an employer, except in exceptional circumstances, should be able to ask for revocation at any time. There may be something in the Regulations to stop an employer doing that, but I cannot find it.
Some weeks or, perhaps, months ago the Minister announced that he had, in effect, named the Registrar-designate, so that employers and others interested in this problem could make approaches to the official in his Ministry knowing that, in due course, that official would be appointed Registrar. Can the Minister tell us what sort of reaction there has been to that appointment? He has had the official in his Department now for some time. Has that person had any inquiries, and what sort of inquiries have they been? Does it appear that the number wanting to contract out will be anything like the estimate given by the Minister when we first started our consideration of this Bill? We shall be glad to have that information.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: The Minister will recall that in Committee we spent some time debating the importance of consultation and proper notification, and I am amazed, on reading Part II of the Regulations—Notices and Elections—that the Ministry suggest three ways of notifying those concerned. First, we have Regulation 3 (1):
(a) Notifying them individually in writing. …

Had the Regulations stopped there, our objections would not have been so great, but there follows:
(b) posting up written notice in some conspicuous place or places at their place of work or employment so that it may be conveniently read by them. …
that is to say, by the employees.
Anybody who knows anything about vast industrial concerns knows how difficult that is. In an industrial area like that at Trafford Park there are anything from 10,000 to 20,000 employees. How can the Minister expect men who are leaving their work or going to it to read a notice that is very important to them? It is important because upon that notice, if it is read—or can be read—depends what the employees will decide.
Finally, we have
(c) making such other provision for giving notice to them as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
That leaves it open for the employer to take such action as he deems advisable.
My connection is with the coal mining industry. I know that not many men in that industry will be brought in, as their wages are below £9 a week, but it will be extremely difficult for any of them to read a notice even if it is put in a conspicuous place. It should be brought to the notice of the Minister that many of these men descend the pit in the dark and come up from it in the dark. A notice, even if it were in a conspicuous place, would not be seen.
I suggest, therefore, that if the Minister wants to satisfy this side of the House and those who will be contracted in or out of the scheme, he should take the Regulations back and remove sub-paragraphs (b) and (c). Then we should know that every individual employee would be notified in writing. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), this is a matter of vital importance. Future success or failure depends upon proper notification to each individual employee.
The other matter which worries me is the time provided for by the Minister. I should never have expected the Department or the Minister to put in so short a period as one month. Three months would have been satisfactory. We on this side of the House know how these


matters work. We know what the machinery is. While it may be a little cumbersome, it is there and we must operate it according to the rules. Things will be extremely difficult for members of trades organisations if so short a period as one month is insisted upon. It would be much better if the Minister were to take back the Regulations and look at the matter again in the light of what is said on this side of the House. We are not now opposing the Regulations for the sake of opposing them. We oppose them because we think very seriously that they will not foot the bill in the sense that they will not work fairly for the employees who are asked to contribute.
I return to what was said in Committee. I think that the Minister went a long way when he replied to our arguments and said that he was in favour of the greatest possible consultation taking place. Yet he now comes to the House with Regulations which make it impossible for proper consultation to take place on certain important aspects affecting employees. Workpeople will want to know where they are, what they have to pay and how the matter is to be dealt with. The Minister and the Department will make a very serious mistake if they do not agree to take the Regulations back and amend them, not necessarily exactly as we have suggested, but, at any rate, in the light of the views we have expressed.
If the scheme is to be a success—I put it no higher—it is of paramount importance that there must be proper consultation and proper notification. We must take into our confidence the men who will pay into the scheme. I support the Prayer to annul the Regulations.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: I confess that I was startled when some of my hon. Friends pointed out that it will be possible for an employer to pick and choose among his workers who is to be exempted and who is not. I had glanced at the Regulations, but I had not recognised the significance of the words in Regulation 4 (1, c),
… if the certificate is not to be general in relation to any employment, a description of the persons in that employment to be included in the certificate or excluded there-from".

I should hardly have believed, if I had not heard it said without contradiction tonight, that it was possible for an employer to say that so many of his workers would be excluded and the others would be kept within the Government's scheme.
This is putting a very dangerous weapon in the hands of the employer. For instance, an employer could say that those members of his staff who do not join a trade union will be exempted but those who are trade unionists will be kept within the Government's scheme. He might say that those curious individuals who can be found in certain factories, Tory trade unionists, will be exempted and others will be kept within the Government scheme. I suggest that it should be all or none. If the workers in a particular concern are to be included they should all be included; if they are to be excluded they should all be excluded. I do not like these words, and I hope that the Minister will find it possible to reconsider them.
The other point to which I wish to refer was the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) concerning the question of one month being an unreasonably short time. It is fairly obvious that if a notice to this effect goes up in a factory the workers concerned will want to consult their trade union to obtain advice as to what they should do. The trade union may not have sufficient experience of superannuation schemes to give immediate advice. It may want to take further advice, possibly through an experienced insurance broker, who would probably want more than a month to go into the details of the pension scheme of that factory compared with the Government's scheme and give the necessary technical advice to the union to pass on to its members. Therefore, one month seems to be an unreasonably short time, and I appeal to the Minister to have another look at it.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: I did not intend to intervene in the debate but I have become rather concerned about the interpretation of these words. I did not have the experience of being on the Committee that examined the Bill, but I know something about the pension scheme which is administered by


an employer who, I suppose, may be regarded as an enlightened employer. I am speaking of the firm of Cadbury, of Bourneville in Birmingham, where 10,000 employees are involved. I am quite sure that this firm would say, "If you ask us to give only a month's notice to our employees it does not enable them, if they would wish to do so, to discuss this with us."
I suppose that the method which that firm would consider appropriate would be to notify the works council, which is representative of the whole of the industry and which also, incidentally, has in a way a connection with the trade union because all the representatives of the workers' side are members of the trade union. I think that it would expect to consider a scheme like this at some length so that all the departmental committees could discuss the matter, which would then come back for discussion with the management of the firm.
It is quite impossible for a good firm adequately to discuss the matter within one month. I suppose that it is up to the firm to give longer notice if it so desires. If an enlightened firm feels that it should have joint consultations to this extent, why should not we say that firms which are not so enlightened should be expected to follow a similar procedure? If the Minister states that a firm shall give one month's notice, is there not a tendency to say that it should give only one month's notice? Can that be satisfactory if it means telling an employer that he need give only one month's notice? This would be totally unsatisfactory in a firm where a pension scheme has been in progress for fifty years and where tremendous questions are involved and the people would wish to argue which scheme was right. They would want full opportunity for consultation, and it is unfair not to let them have it.
I am sure that the firm to which I have referred would find no difficulty in giving an individual notice to employees. Surely, every subscriber to a fund receives an individual notice whenever there is a meeting of the fund. The right thing to do would be to notify all the workpeople by means of a note. Many of us have experience of matters being put on notice boards. We have had hundreds of complaints that notices

that were displayed were not satisfactory. That is my experience, having been for ten years or so a member of a works council representing a large number of people. Many times it was pointed out that the notice was never seen. A firm such as the one to which I have referred would regard it as its duty to give every employee an individual notice and such an arrangement could easily be adopted. Moreover, when the notice has been given, adequate time would be required for consultation.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter. Two months would be better than one month. A period of two months would enable people to go to their respective organisations and come back to the firm. It would be much better than one month, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter on these lines.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Oram: I should like briefly to add my protest to the protests by my hon. Friends at what seem to me to be the fantastically weak provisions for the notification to employees of a decision about their superannuation scheme. The discussion so far has centred upon notification, but I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) reminded the House that we on this side are concerned not only that employees should be adequately notified about the decision of their employer, but that they should have full opportunity of joining in the decision that is made about their scheme.
A number of examples have been given from this side of the House about what good employers are able to do in the way of consultation with their employees. I should like to give another example from my own experience. My example is that of a co-operative society, of which I happen to be a member of the management committee. We have already taken steps to consult the employees about the decision which ultimately will be made. I have been asked to assist in the drafting of a detailed explanation to the employees of their position under the scheme. This will be done before a decision is made. We shall be meticulous in ensuring that we have the full agreement of the employees in any decision which is reached.
If that can be done by us, and if the sort of procedure described by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) and Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) in relation to private firms is possible, surely other employers can take similar action. It is surely necessary that when a decision has been made, the employees should know about it much longer than a month before it comes into operation. What is the point of giving them notice at all? Surely it is in order that they might be able to make representations about the decision. A month is too short a time for any sort of machinery for representation to have any real effect. The methods of notification are alternatives. Paragraph 3 (1,c) reads:
making such other provision for giving notice to them as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case".
That seems to me to be as near as a Parliamentary draftsman can possibly go to telling an employer, "You need not bother very much about this at all."
I support what was said by one of my hon. Friends, that what we are being asked to do is to legislate, not for the good firms, not for the Cadbury's and the firms to which my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell referred and the co-operative society to which I referred, but for the poor employer. The House is being asked to put a limit on notification. That is why I entirely support what was said in urging the Minister to consider that these Regulations are completely inadequate and that he ought to take them back and put in their place something which is very much more protective of the interests of employees.

Mr. Arthur Tiley: I should like to clear up one point in the hon. Gentleman's mind. A lot of valid argument has been put forward in the debate, but I wish that hon. Members opposite would remove from their minds their ideas about the poor employer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For the simple reason that every one of the 9 million persons—and it is an intelligent point which I am putting—is in a pension scheme without legislation from this House. They are in because employers, of their own free will, have started voluntary schemes. It is quite wrong for anyone, on either side of the House, to infer that there may be any poor employers involved.

Mr. Oram: All I would say in reply to the hon. Gentleman is that if employers are as good as he tries to make out—and I will accept that many are—surely they would not object to a more reasonable method of notification to their employees.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The intervention of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) only shows how ignorant he is about the wages being earned by many workers. Hundreds of thousands of workers are receiving less than £9 a week, the limit imposed by the Bill, and are still contributing to superannuation schemes. It he does not realise that, then let him study the Ministry of Labour's monthly publication. It is time that hon. Members began to understand what is happening in this world and not come here with their high-falutin' nonsense. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to name one wages council which pays a wage of over £9 to an adult worker of 21.

Mr. Tiley: That was not the point at issue. It does not matter a jot whether a man has £8, £9, £10, up to £20 or £30 a week. It is an advantage to a man, and a bigger advantage to the lower-paid worker, that his employer should have started a pension scheme. In that way, the employer, of his own free will, is adding something to the man's weekly wage for nothing and without statutory regulations. Hon. Members opposite should at least begin to recognise—

Mr. E. G. Willis: Why does not the hon. Member answer my hon. Friend's question?

Mr. Tiley: I am not talking to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. I am dealing with what was said by the hon. Member for Jarrow. I reckon that the Scots have taken up enough time of the House this week. The only point I am making is this. For goodness sake, let hon. Members recognise what the country recognised five or six weeks ago, namely, that bosses are on the whole good Christian men and have started these schemes of their own free will.

Mr. Willis: Now answer my question.

Mr. Fernyhough: That was an unusually long intervention. I gave way


to the hon. Gentleman because I am always anxious that he should display his ignorance. I want to ask the Minister whether he will kindly acquaint his hon. Friend with the facts of life with regard to the Act.
If a private employer, employing men and women at below £9 a week, decides to join the Government scheme, those employees receiving below £9 a week will not be eligible to be members of the scheme. The hon. Member should really know something of the Act before he makes an intervention of that kind. We are talking about people who will be embraced by the Act.
I want to put a point to the Minister in a helpful way. I want him to reconsider this matter of one month's notification. Before I became a Member of the House I lived among workers and attended trade union meetings. Trade union branches normally meet once a month. Assuming that an employer sends out a notification the day after they lave met and they do not meet again for another month, what happens? The Minister should seriously consider the further point whether it will be possible under the Regulations for the employers to discriminate.

Mr. Crossman: Of course it will.

Mr. Fernyhough: Then the Minister should not believe that it is the responsibility of agents of Moscow if wild-cat strikes occur. The responsibility will lie at the Minister's door. The wheels cannot be kept turning in British industry today on the basis of making fish of one and fowl of another. In matters of this kind, in particular, where it is a question of reward for services rendered, all employees ought to be embraced. [Laughter.]

Mr. Paul Williams: The facts of life?

Mr. Fernyhough: These are the facts of life, but even that fact does not apply in the industry from which my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) comes, because there are no women workers in that industry, and I do not know that it applies in the industry which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South represents. But we cannot have a scheme of this kind which is not all-embracing. We cannot separate the

sheep from the goats and say that the administrative staff shall have one pension scheme and the productive workers another. It is for the Minister to see that as far as possible no such discrimination is made.
More important still is that he should see to it that much longer notice than one month is given. I am sure that he would agree that in the case of notices of this kind, which will have far-reaching long-term defects on the lives of the people concerned, notification should be at more than a month's notice so that discussions can take place and that whatever scheme is adopted by the firm concerned shall be introduced with as little misgiving and as possible. It lies with the Minister whether it comes in that manner, so I hope the right hon. Gentleman will try to help along his own Act by modifying the Regulations along the lines which my hon. Friends have requested.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: It is not necessary for me to emphasise the complexity of the scheme which will come into operation in April, 1961. Anyone who listened to the debate on the original Bill must be only too well aware of the complex nature of the Government's scheme, which will provide a serious headache for many employers as well as employees.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) that the scheme introduces a valuable principle in providing for the transferability of pension rights. We must remember, however, that it does not provide for the transferability of pension rights in all schemes, but only within the context of this scheme. I am not sure what effect that condition will have on the decision of employers to contract out. It is just possible that it may deter some employers from doing so, but we cannot foresee that at the moment. Neither employers nor employees can fully foresee what future changes will take place, and this will make it difficult to decide whether or not contracting out is valuable for any firm or group of employees.
When the Government scheme was introduced originally I spoke in favour of individual option but I was persuaded,


like the hon. Member for Coventry, East, that it was not practicable. This raises the question of notification which has been discussed in this debate. I should think it would have been possible to make a provision for individual notification. One must remember that nearly all the voluntary schemes have been introduced by firms with a concern for their employees. It is usual to give every individual notification of change and the whole thing depends on confidence. I should think that it would have been reasonable to require individual notification and to ask an employer to make a declaration that such notification has been given when applying for a certificate.
I have risen to ask what is to be the context of the notice. Reference has been made to objective comparison, one hon. Member saying that an employee should be able to judge for himself after making an objective comparison. Another hon. Member referred to the need for comparative figures. It will be a difficult job for an employer if he has to get out all the comparative figures and provide evidence to the Registrar that this has been done for each employee. I should like to know what the Minister has in mind, because the Regulations merely state:
For the purpose of informing persons employed by him … of his intention to make or revoke an election. …
Is the notice merely a formal notice of intention and nothing more; and, if not, what is to be included in the notice?

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I shall make only a brief intervention. First, I will deal with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley). There is a great deal of substance in his point because what we are dealing with is that section of industry which in the main has been enlightened enough to introduce superannuation schemes for its employees. It is true that, to a large degree, there is an element of enlightened employers in this category; but, in dealing with legislation, we are concerned primarily with the less enlightened in all categories. I put it to the hon. Member for Bradford, West, through you, Sir, that a percentage of superannua-

tion schemes have been introduced by firms within this sector, due entirely to pressure from the trade unions.
When one is dealing with bad employers, one cannot think in terms of co-operative societies and Cadburys and enlightened firms of that sort. There is a good deal of substance in what the hon. Member for Bradford, West said, but we have to devote attention to those employers who have introduced superannuation schemes largely as a result of trade union pressure.

Mr. Tiley: This is the cut and thrust of debate which the House of Commons is supposed to have. I admit the point the hon. Member is making, but few schemes exist because of the insistence of trade unions. Indeed, trade unions have done too little over the last 10 or 15 years to extend pensions of this sort.

Mr. Loughlin: I can speak only from my own experience as a trade union official for fourteen years. I have been employed by only one trade union and I can assure the hon. Member that that union had a department specifically for introducing superannuation schemes in concert with employers.

Mr. Reynolds: Would not my hon. Friend agree, from his experience of dealing with these matters as a trade union official, that many employers have introduced superannuation schemes not necessarily out of the kindness of their hearts towards employees, but as a method of trying to tie employees to the firm?

Mr. Loughlin: There are obviously certain advantages in such an arrangement, but I would not accept that all employers have regarded superannuation schemes solely as a method of holding people to their employment. Obviously, the greater the turnover of labour, the greater are labour costs. While employers have to be cognisant of the fact that superannuation schemes help to retain employees in their employment, that does not necessarily mean that they are bad employers.
I am not concerned with the good employers. No man can be a trade union official without having to accept that there are good as well as bad employers. We have to legislate to deal with the


worst employer in each category with which we are dealing. It is essential that sufficient notice should be given to employees to permit them to consult their trade unions before employers can be entitled to contract out.
Over the last fifteen years, we have paid much lip-service in this country to joint consultation. Most good industrial consultants today argue that the very basis of productivity is to be found in good industrial relations. If Parliament commits acts which endanger good relations in industry, or in even a small sector of industry, we are failing in our responsibilities to industry. If there is to be any notification, it must be such that it is possible for workpeople employed by bad employers to consult their unions to ensure that their interests are protected. As the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) said, the result may well be that there will be strikes. If strikes are the result of our failure to ensure that there is a requisite period of notice hon. Members opposite must admit to having make a mistake.
The exhibition of notices has been mentioned. The industries with which I was concerned were, to a large extent, covered by wages council orders. A wages council order is issued in the first instance as a proposal. A period of days, normally twenty-one, is allowed for the exhibition of the proposed changes in the Statutory Instrument. Although the law demands that such proposals shall be exhibited in a place that is accessible to the employees, it is my experience that only a small proportion of employees see such an order. If we give the employer the right to choose the place in his factory where the notice is to be exhibited, it will be useless so far as many of the employees are concerned.
The Minister ought to look at the issue of notification again. If an employee is to be affected by any action that we take, he ought in fairness to be given every opportunity to take steps to secure his position both at present and in the future. If there is the slightest doubt whether the provisions that we make will enable him to do that, we ought to change the provisions.

10.22 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The debate has certainly served a useful purpose, if only to bring out the very wide measure of, I am sure, quite genuine misunderstanding on the other side of the House both of the effect of these Regulations and of the method by which they were made. That began when the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) told the House—I must say to my astonishment—that these two sets of Regulations contained the whole of the mechanics of contracting out. Let me assure the House that they do not, and that a considerable number of further Regulations will be required before the desirable purpose is wholly achieved.
I was very touched by one thing that the hon. Member for Coventry, East said. He said that during the recent General Election people were left to think that only one pension scheme, the Labour Party one, was being put forward. In view of the results of the General Election, that observation showed very commendable modesty on the part of the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Coventry, East also said, with that powerful rhetoric which some of us had, shall we say, quite enough of in Standing Committee A, that we were taking steps to ensure that workers would not know what their position would be with respect to contracting out. He ignored the fact that we have widely distributed a leaflet which clearly describes the whole system, though it is fair to say that the only thanks that I have had for issuing it was criticism from the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) that it might have a political effect.
I should like to deal with one or two of the general concepts that have been discussed in the debate. There was a good deal of talk about whether legislation was required for good or bad employers. I do not propose to enter into any generalisation about employers, but hon. Members will realise that we are concerned only with employers who, without compulsion but because they thought it the right thing to do, have provided schemes which give at least as much benefit as the pro-

posed State-graduated scheme at the maximum. That point was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) in an intervention a few minutes ago. Therefore, we are dealing with a highly progressive section of employers. The only employers concerned with these Regulations are those who have existing schemes, or schemes coming into existence, of some substance.
The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) were apparently very surprised that when an employer applies for a certificate under these Regulations it need not include all his employees. I should be out of order in doing more than pointing out that that power, be it right or wrong, derives not from these Regulations but from the Act. We have to deal not only with the very small but also the very great concerns, which have an infinite variety of employees with infinitely varying needs, and if we said that it was to be all or none we should deny them any opportunity of contracting out.
There has been much discussion as to the precise rights and position of employees in cases where employers apply for certificates. I hope to show that the Regulations provide sufficient safeguards. The greatest safeguard is that no man can be contracted out by his employer under the Regulations unless his employer preserves for him, in one form or another, pension rights at least as great as he could have earned under the State scheme at the maximum.
Reference has been made to the way in which these Regulations have been framed. The hon. Member for Coventry, East referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. I want the House to be quite clear as to the procedure followed in making these Regulations, because it has some bearing on their content. They are made under the provisions laid down in the original Act of 1946, the effect of which have been imported into the 1959 Act. I submit Regulations in draft to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which is a body known to hon. Members on both sides as having a very great standing, authority and experience. Both sets of Regulations were so submitted, and the reports of the National Insurance Ad-


visory Committee on both, accompanied by a statement by me, are available to on. Members. The House will see that, in respect of both sets of Regulations, a number of amendments were suggested by the Advisory Committee, every one of which has been accepted by the Government and is embodied in the Regulations.
I do not suggest for a moment that that fact should inhibit hon. Members from disagreeing—this is a matter for judgment and opinion—but when they recollect not only the standing of the Advisory Committee but the fact that it advertises for and receives representations from all sorts of points of view and organisations, which it considers before making its reports, they will realise that a good deal of weight should be attached to what the Advisory Committee finally recommends, and they will hold it to the credit and strength of Regulations that they embody each and every proposal for amendment which, after considering the representations made to it, this very able and eminent body proposed.
Under Regulation 2 of the Regulations (No. 1860), provision is made for the appointment of the Registrar, which so concerns the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). The hon. Member, however, when he stated that the Registrar was appointed by someone who had nothing to do with Scotland—by which I think he meant my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor—was in error. The Registrar is appointed by me. He has been appointed and, if I may reply to a question another hon. Member asked, first as Registrar-designate and now as Registrar, he has had a very considerable number of inquiries from, and discussions with, persons interested in contracting out. To complete this part of the account, the Registrar-designate, as I informed the House, was Mr. Leach, an under-secretary in my Department, and he has now been confirmed as Registrar. What the hon. Member for Motherwell was thinking about is a functionary not covered by these Regulations at all, the adjudicator.
I come to a point where I must with some modesty disclaim the rather few congratulations which the hon. Member for Coventry, East tendered to me when he congratulated me on the provision about transferability in these Regulations. These Regulations have nothing whatever to do with transferability, and the word

is not mentioned throughout them. I should not like to retain the vote of the hon. Member in support of them by false pretences.
We come to one of the points of substance which was raised, the question of notification. The hon. Member for Coventry, East said that this was left to the free choice of the employer. It is perfectly true that Regulation 3 does provide for three alternative or cumulative methods of giving notification, but what I think he has failed to observe are the provisions of Regulation 14 (4), which I shall read to the House. That states:
The Registrar shall not issue, vary, cancel or accept the surrender of any certificate in accordance with an election or the revocation of an election made by an employer unless he is satisfied that the steps taken by the employer to comply with the provisions of regulation 3 of these regulations are reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
The matter therefore does not rest, as he suggested, on the free and unfettered choice of the employer. The employer has got to undertake a method of notification which will subsequently satisfy the registrar.

Mr. Crossman: This is a point we asked the right hon. Gentleman to clarify. If we take Regulation 14 (4) and study it in connection with 3 (b), we see that Regulation 3 (b) says:
posting up written notice in some conspicuous place or places …
is a proper method of notification. Regulation 14 (4) says the Registrar must satisfy himself that in each case it is suitable. What we want to know is, how can the Registrar do that except by visiting every factory and office and seeing that it is as conspicuous a notice as possible? I suggested that this was putting on the staff of the Registrar a totally intolerable burden and it was virtually giving the employer freedom because the only check of seeing that it was on the notice board could not be carried out.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member will appreciate that the onus is on the employer to satisfy the Registrar that notification adequate in the circumstances of the case has been given. If he does not so satisfy the Registrar, he does not get a certificate. It is therefore a matter of satisfying the Registrar by


evidence. The hon. Gentleman has disclosed the impracticability of his own proposal that the only method of notification should be individual written notification to every employee. If, as the hon. Gentleman says, it would be difficult for the Registrar to satisfy himself that notices had been placed in factories, it is self-evident that it would be infinitely more difficult for him to satisfy himself that every individual employee had received a notice. The hon. Gentleman has indicated, perhaps more clearly than I was going to, the practical impossibility of his suggestion.
In large concerns having large numbers of employees, some of whom may be sick or abroad, is it reasonable to create a legal position in which, if an employer fails by individual letter to notify one employee, the validity of the certificate itself may be called into question? That is not reasonable in those concerns. When dealing with a small concern with a number of employees always there, the simplest thing would be for the employer to do what hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to want him to do in all cases, and send an individual notification. When dealing with a great and complex organisation with a very large number of employees, a mockery will be made of contracting out if it is to be possible to say, after a certificate has been issued, that there was a failure, however inadvertent, to notify one employee and that therefore the certificate is invalid.

Mr. Crossman: It Would be useful to get the point clear. The Minister said that he had great respect for the Committee and held its members in great esteem. He tells me that our proposal for individual notification is impracticable. In that case, the minority on the Committee made an impracticable proposal. We merely asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider what some members of his own Committee had suggested, namely, that employers should be required to give individual notice to their employees. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the members of his Committee who proposed this were proposing nonsense? He has just told us that it was impracticable nonsense. The Minister will not dispute that it was an influential and powerful minority.

Its view was that it would not have been impracticable. The majority did not turn it down as impracticable. It said that it wanted to give the employer more latitude. I am not clear why the right hon. Gentleman thinks it practicable for the Registrar to convince himself that an employer has a conspicuous notice board—it is a thing which you cannot possibly do—and not practicable to suggest that there should be individual notification. Of course it is practicable to insist that each employee should be notified. The Minister does not make it impossible by simply saying that it is impossible, and thereby denying the members of his own Committee who suggested it. He said himself that they were people of the very' greatest importance. Why should he cast a slur on their opinion?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Though they suggested it, they apparently, as the result of the discussion which took place and the views expressed, acquiesced in what is a unanimous Report. It is not right for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that any section of the Committee carried to the final point of dissent a disagreement in favour of the point of view he indicates. When I said that it would be impracticable, I did not say that it would be impracticable on all occasions. I said that it would be impracticable to lay it down as a universal condition regardless of the circumstances.
When dealing, at least in possibility, with some 40,000 pension schemes, from great big ones in great big concerns to quite small ones in quite small concerns, and even quite small ones in big concerns, it is sensible to do as the Regulations do and leave it to the Registrar to consider whether the notification given is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. I must throw the Committee back at the hon. Gentleman. In the face of the Committee's recommendations in favour of the Regulations as they now stand, and in face of the practical problems of laying down one solution for possibly 40,000 differing pension schemes, it would not be wise to limit it as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
The hon. Gentleman said that I had treated the Committee badly over the question of the period of notice. Those were the words he used. He suggested


to the House that the Committee had recommended a longer period. That was the clear implication of what he said. Let me, to resolve the matter, read to the House what the Committee said in paragraph 7 of its Report:
We have some sympathy with the view that the period of notice is rather short. On the ether hand, if as much as three months' notice were required in every case it would seriously delay the settlement of applications and might well make it difficult for the Registrar to clear all the applications made before the date on which the national scheme is due to begin. The period of notice provided s, of course, only the minimum and there is no reason why employers should not give their staffs longer notice of their intention; indeed we think there is every reason to believe that in the great majority of cases informal discussions will take place at an early stage. On the whole, therefore we do not favour any extension of the period of notice.
To say that in adopting the Committee's recommendation I am treating the Committee badly is really an abuse of language. Of course, the Committee's advice, as is always the case in this Committee, is full of good sense. I have accepted it in a very high proportion of cases indeed, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
We are here dealing, as I said a moment ago, both with large concerns with large pension schemes and with small concerns with small pension schemes. I accept that when we are covering some of the very big ones it may be advantageous to give a longer period of notice than a month.
Here we come again to what has been said on this subject and others by hon. Members opposite. No sane employer is going to attempt to bulldoze his employees on this or any other matter, because, after all, one of the reasons undoubtedly for the introduction of pension schemes is to help produce good industrial relations. An employer who acts as some hon. Members opposite seem to fear some employers will act, and seeks to oppress or diminish the rights of his employees in this matter, will soon learn his lesson by the industrial trouble which an hon. Member opposite said he would undoubtedly bring upon himself. It really is wrong to approach this matter from the point of view that all or a great many em-

ployers are going to behave in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Then the hon. Member for East Ham. North (Mr. Prentice) asked about consultation with the trade unions. As he knows, as I am sure he has read the Report, the Advisory Committee considered whether that should be made a compulsory condition. The Committee rejected it for what seems to me an overwhelmingly practical reason. No employer could necessarily know to which of the many unions in our trade union system each of his employees belonged. There, again, it would surely be a great mistake subsequently to put the validity of a certificate in question because an employer had failed to notify a union which had a member or two among his employees though he was ignorant of the fact.
I will say in response to an appeal by another hon. Member that where there is strong union organisation in the works or firm I cannot imagine any sane employer not, in fact, entering into consultations. Those of us who endured the prolonged marathon of the Committee stage of the Bill will recall that again and again, to a point perhaps which made some hon. Members feel that I was guilty of tedious repetition, I said that I was perfectly certain there would be consultations with those who represent the employees in the firm, and with the employees themselves, over all these stages.
In response to the appeal made to me, I will certainly say that I very much hope that the practice which I ventured to commend during the Committee stage will be very widely adopted. I think the House must accept that to make it a compulsory condition would, for the reason I have given, be quite impracticable.
Then the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) referred to the Second Schedule and, I think, slightly mis-stated the effect of Section 12. Under that Section, it is not the fact, as he suggested, that the "employers" of those in local government and education would necessarily be, for this purpose, my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Local Government and of Education, though regulations may be made to permit that.
I can relieve the hon. Gentleman's apprehensions by referring to Section 12 (3) of the Act, which says very clearly:
Before making any regulations under this section the appropriate Minister shall consult with such bodies concerned with employments of the class in question as appear to him fairly to represent the interests of employers and employed persons in those employments.
That being in the Act, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it would have been not only superfluous but probably irregular to have added it to these Regulations.
I have already dealt with the trade union point, to which the hon. Member for East Ham, North also referred, so we come to the main principle of these Regulations. Let me repeat, they provide a part of the mechanism for contracting out. They provide a system which is, I hope and believe, as clear and as simple as can be devised for working this far-from-easy business.
As I have said to the House on more than one occasion, no other country has previously operated a system of contracting out from a State graduated pension scheme. I have said before, and I will repeat it, that it is not an easy thing to do. We have tried, while holding the balance fair in these Regulations, to achieve simplicity, and such clarity as the language inevitable in the drafting of regulations permits.
We should make a great mistake if we were to try to make these Regulations, as has been suggested, tighter and more elaborate. We have taken a reasonably middle course. That is my judgment. I may be wrong. This is a new subject, on which practical experience is lacking. We are in an experimental sphere. But I will certainly tell the House that I shall regard it as my duty to watch the effect of these Regulations as they come into operation. I shall certainly keep a watch on the Regulations to see whether the result is what some hon. Members fear—I think, wrongly—will be the case, and, if they turn out to be right and I turn out to be wrong, I shall not hesitate—and I tell the House frankly—to put the matter right.
So far as my judgment goes—and the House knows that I have lived with the subject now for a very long time—I think that we have about the right mean level between undue laxity and undue tightness

in these Regulations. That view, as I say, is shared by the Advisory Committee after hearing the representations made to it. We should, I think, put these Regulations into effect, subject to the undertaking I have given—and which, if I had not given it, the House would have been in a position to expect of me—to watch their effect.
Moving, as we are, in this unknown sphere, I sincerely believe that the apprehensions of some hon. Members are quite unsound. I believe that these Regulations will work but, if I am wrong, I shall put them right.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the Minister clear a small point concerning the letter of notification? When superannuation schemes are introduced, a notification is given in writing to employees concerning the deduction of contribution from their wages. That is done, even in a factory where 12,000 people are employed, by the simple insertion in a wage packet of a notice that the employee signs and returns. Is there anything wrong in pursuing the same method of putting a notice in the wage packets of employees for them to return indicating what they think about contracting out or contracting in? The Minister appears to think that there is great difficulty, whereas we find that it is a simple method when introducing superannuation schemes.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is a profound difference. The hon. Member, with his trade union experience, will know well that if either there is a failure to give a notification in a wage packet or a wrong notification is given, there would be a quick and proper reaction from the man concerned. It is a quite different thing to put in jeopardy the validity of a certificate, covering, perhaps, thousands of employees, because one man may not have been notified, a man who may have no conceivable reason, such as existed in the case suggested by the hon. Member, for at once reacting and notifying the employer. When the hon. Member thinks about this, he will appreciate that there is no analogy between the two situations.

Mr. Wade: Will the Minister be good enough to answer my questions?

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: My verdict on the right hon. Gentleman's speech is that he has been too stubborn


and argumentative over a matter which he could have disposed of quickly and easily had he taken a simple alternative course. Secondly, he was unduly sarcastic about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman)—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes—on certain of the passages in his speech which referred to the detail of the Regulations. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman is obviously still smarting too much at the close attention we gave to the Bill in Committee some months ago.
These two Statutory Instruments relate to contracting out. Contracting out was settled by the Act and we are dealing with, first, some of the conditions which must be satisfied before an employer can contract out, and, secondly, the mechanics which the employer must use if he proposes to contract out any part of his employees.
I should like to make one or two points on Statutory Instrument No. 1861, which has not received much attention during the debate, and suggest to the Minister that there may be one or two points which should receive his consideration in due course, possibly with a view to making amending Regulations. In deciding whether equivalent pension benefits exist in a private scheme, one of the tests is that the pension or a specified part of it is payable for life and is not capable of being terminated or suspended except for causes, if any, which may be prescribed.
In Regulation 2 (a) of S.I. 1861, certain causes are prescribed. In Regulation 2 (a) (i) the Minister, in response to a recommendation of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, has added in parentheses the words
whether by operation of law or otherwise.
That was intended to meet the comments of the National Insurance Advisory Committee in paragraph 7 of its Report, dealing with the possible termination or suspension of pension on bankruptcy, which said that
many occupational schemes contain provisions permitting the termination or suspension of a pension on account of bankruptcy and these generally include a discretionary power, vested in the trustees or committee of management, to pay the pension during bankruptcy to the pensioner's wife or other dependant.

The Committee went on:
This is clearly intended to achieve the same object of protecting the pension from passing to creditors. We are advised that the reference to "alienation" in Regulation 2 (a) could be interpreted as not permitting the inclusion of provisions of this kind in contracted-out schemes, and we recommend that the regulation should be modified so as to make it clear that a rule allowing the termination or suspension of the equivalent pension benefit by reason of bankruptcy shall not be a bar to contracting out.
What the right hon. Gentleman has not done in accepting the recommendation of the Committee is to stipulate that in such cases of termination or suspension on account of bankruptcy, the discretionary power, to which the Committee refers as being generally present in such circumstances, shall be present in the scheme before advantage can be taken of the prescribed causes under the heading of bankruptcy.
That is an important point. I notice that in dealing with people who are suffering from mental disorder or inability to act, the Regulations provide that
… sub-paragraph (ii) of this paragraph shall not apply unless there is provision enabling the pension to be paid or applied at discretion for the maintenance or support of the pensioner's spouse or of other persons depending on him …
The point I am making is that the Minister has not insisted on the proviso for discretionary grants to wife or dependant in the case of a person suffering from mental illness which might involve the suspension or termination of the pension being written into the conditions of suspension or termination of pension in cases of bankruptcy.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in his analysis of the provision, and the reason is that such payments in bankruptcy cases, so I am advised, would be affected by the bankruptcy law and liable to be payments for the benefit of creditors. Of course, it is not possible to amend the bankruptcy law by means of National Insurance Regulations.

Mr. Houghton: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, although it seems strange that value is apparently attached to such a proviso which, as the Committee said, is generally found in vocational schemes, when dealing with the question of treatment of pension in cases of bankruptcy. However, I pass from


the subject. I have made the point and the right hon. Gentleman may wish to consider whether there is anything more to be done.
There is another respect in which Statutory Instrument No. 1861 may need attention in regard to these prescribed causes, because paragraph 2 (b) deals with the possibility of suspension of pension during imprisonment or detention in legal custody, or upon resumption of employment with the employer. I am not sure that the reference to resumption of employment with the employer is very happily placed so close to "imprisonment or detention in legal custody". It rather suggests that when, coming out of prison, a man is re-employed by his employer these conditions will then apply. Actually, of course, the reference to resumption of employment with the employer deals with a man who has retired and who becomes what in the public service would be called a "re-engaged pensioner".
It seems to me that the mere fact of resumption of employment with the employer after having retired does not of itself justify suspension or termination of pension. In the public service, a re-engaged pensioner still retains his right of pension, although it may be abated by the pay he receives for the job for which he is re-engaged. If his pay is greater than his pension, his pension is totally extinguished for a temporary period. I hope there is no suggestion in the Regulations that resumption of employment with the employer might entail complete suspension or termination of pension, irrespective of circumstances. Those are two points on that Statutory Instrument which are worthy of further consideration by the right hon. Gentleman.
I now come to the main issue with which the right hon. Gentleman has been dealing. We prayed against both these Statutory Instruments. There were points of doubt and difficulty on both. We are here dealing with two questions: how long notice shall be given of the employer's intention to contract out and what steps he shall take if he intends to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the question of one month versus two or three months notice of intention to con-

tract out. It is true that the Committee did not come down definitely in favour of a longer period than one month, but it is clear from the language that it used that it thought that a longer period would be justified if it were feasible, having regard to the timetable of the scheme.
My conclusion is that the right hon. Gentleman scared the Committee off recommending a longer period by telling the Committee that if it recommended longer than a month we would never get through the work in time. That is a pretty bad thing. If the Bill cannot start on time let it start a little later, but let us have all the processes fully and satisfactorily gone through before the scheme comes into operation.
It may be that employers are being slow off the mark. They have known the details of the scheme for some time and there is no reason why there should be undue delay. Such advice as they need can be taken now. Some employers may be dilatory about it and may be leaving it to the last moment. It is important that they should be encouraged to deal with the matter expeditiously, and a period of three months notice would encourage them to do so.
Finally, what kind of notice shall be given? The right hon. Gentleman made very heavy weather of his objections to adopting the recommendation of the minority of the National Insurance Advisory Committee. Surely the Minister could have reasoned thus. If there is any argument about it, if there is any dispute about it, if there is a minority on the Committee, we will cut through all that by providing for individual notification. After all, the majority of the Committee did not object to individual notification; they merely thought that it was not necessary. The minority on the Committee thought that it was necessary and held to that view. In those circumstances, it would have been much better if the Minister had dispelled any grounds for criticism by providing for individual notification.
There is no difficulty about this—none at all. As has been pointed out by my hon. Friends, wage packets are issued, salary cheques are sent out, notifications of postings and of duties are continuously sent out, and it would be no hardship to the employer if he were required to give individual notification.
Is not that even more essential when the employer may discriminate in favour of contracting out some of his employees and leaving others in the national scheme, and when notices on notice boards may be very difficult to follow, quite apart from them not being accessible to all those concerned? Why bother with the interpretation of the words "in some conspicuous place"? Why bother the Registrar, under paragraph 14 (4), to consider whether the steps taken by the employers are reasonable in the circumstances of the case? Has he not plenty to worry about without trying to decide whether the employer has done what is reasonable?
We are told that the Registrar will not be able to get through his enormous task if three months notice is given, so it is to be one month. Why not make his job lighter by cutting out all this nonsense about having to consider what an employer has done? Will the

Registrar have to inquire whether the notice boards were in a conspicuous place? Will he have to inquire how many notice boards there were and what sort of type was in the notice displayed on the notice board?

Having some knowledge of the difficulties of civil servants in this position, I am sure they would wish to be relieved of such unpalatable tasks. What they like is something straight and simple—and straight and simple it would have been if individual notice had to be given.

In all the circumstances, the Minister must realise that he has failed to convince my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I recommend them to divide.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 196.

Division No. 23.]
AYES
[11.8 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Gourlay, Harry
Owen, Will


Albu, Austen
Grey, Charles
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)
Pavitt, Laurence


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Awbery, Stan
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pentland, Norman


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hannan, William
Prentice, R. E.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Beaney, Alan
Hayman, F. H.
Probert, Arthur


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Proctor, W. T.


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Randall, Harry


Blyton, William
Howell, Charles A.
Rankin, John


Boardman, H.
Hoy, James H.
Reynolds, G. W.


Boyden, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hunter, A. E.
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Ross, William


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Sorensen, R. W.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Carmichael, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Spriggs, Leslie


Chetwynd, George
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Steele, Thomas


Cliffe, Michael
King, Dr. Horace
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Stonehouse, John


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stones, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Swain, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Sylvester, George


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McCann, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
MacColl, James
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Deer, George
McInnes, James
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Delargy, Hugh
Mackie, John
Thornton, Ernest


Dempsey, James
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Wainwright, Edwin


Donnelly, Desmond
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Warbey, William


Driberg, Tom
Mahon, Simon
Watkins, Tudor


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Manuel, A. C.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Mapp, Charles
White, Mrs. Eirene


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Marsh, Richard
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mason, Roy
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Evens, Albert
Mayhew, Christopher
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Finch, Harold
Millan, Bruce
Winterbottom, R. E.


Fitch, Alan
Monslow, Walter
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Forman, J. C.
Moody, A. S.
Woof, Robert


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Neal, Harold
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Ginsburg, David
Oram, A. E.



Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oswald, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Short and Mr. Redhead.




Agnew, Sir Peter
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Partridge, E.


Aitken, W. T.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Alport, C. J. M.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Peel, John


Arbuthnot, John
Harvey, John (Walthametow, E.)
Percival, Ian


Balniel, Lord
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Barlow, Sir John
Hendry, A. Forbes
Pitman, I. J.


Batsford, Brian
Hiley, Joseph
Pitt, Miss Edith


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pott, Percivall


Bidgood, John C.
Hocking, Philip N.
Powell, J. Enoch


Biggs-Davison, John
Holland, Philip
Prior, J. M. L.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hollingworth, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bishop, F. P.
Holt, Arthur
Ramsden, James


Black, Sir Cyril
Hopkins, Alan
Rawlinson, Peter


Bossom, Clive
Hornby, R. P.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Ridsdale, Julian


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Box, Donald
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Roots, William


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Russell, Ronald


Brewis, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brooman-White, R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Seymour, Leslie


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
James, David
Sharples, Richard


Bryan, Paul
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Shepherd, William


Bullard, Denys
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Chataway, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Smithers, Peter


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Speir, Rupert


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kaberry, Donald
Stodart, J. A.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Storey, S.


Cleaver, Leonard
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cole, Norman
Kershaw, Anthony
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Collard, Richard
Kimball, Marcus
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Cooper, A. E.
Kitson, Timothy
Talbot, John E.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lambton, Viscount
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Cordle, John
Leburn, Gilmour
Temple, John M.


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Critchley, Julian
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Curran, Charles
Lilley, F. J. P.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Currie, G. B. H.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Dance, James
Litchfield, Capt. John
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Deedes, W. F.
Longden, Gilbert
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


de Ferranti, Basil
Loveys, Walter H.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Drayson, G. B.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Vane, W. M. F.


Duncan, Sir James
MacArthur, Ian
Wade, Donald


Duthie, Sir William
McMaster, Stanley
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Errington, Sir Eric
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Wall, Patrick


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Webster, David


Farr, John
Maddan, Martin
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Finlay, Graeme
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Whitelaw, William


Fisher, Nigel
Marten, Neil
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Freeth, Denzil
Mawby, Ray
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gammans, Lady
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. G.
Wise, Alfred


Gardner, Edward
Mills, Stratton
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Montgomery, Fergus
Woodhouse, C. M.


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Morgan, William
Woodnutt, Mark


Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Woollam, John


Gower, Raymond
Noble, Michael
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. D.



Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gurden, Harold
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Mr. Chichester-Clark.


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Page, Graham

OPENCAST MINING, ABERTILLERY (TELEVISION RECEPTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

11.16 p.m.

The Rev. Llywelyn Williams: The Minister of Power, with the unfailing courtesy which is one of his many virtues, kindly sent me a letter to explain his absence from this Adjournment debate tonight. Nevertheless, I must say that I regret that he is not here. I say that in no sense of reflection on the pungent and robust good sense of his Parliamentary Secretary, who is with us, when he speaks of mining matters; but rather because I was hoping for a practical conclusion to this debate.
I believe that in the course of the next few days, the Parliamentary Secretary will be visiting south Wales. I wish that he could have visited the Abertillery constituency but, unfortunately, he is not to do so. I do not think he has ever visited it and, therefore, I will briefly describe it for him. I would ask him to think of a narrow valley in which there are, within a stretch of about ten miles, no fewer than twelve collieries, some of them very large. In addition to those existing collieries, there are at least half a dozen derelict collieries; and, in addition to this remarkable concentration of mining industry, we have one of the largest opencast mining undertakings in the whole country.
This opencast operation concerns the township of Abertillery itself, with a population of 26,500 people. Last summer, the huge excavating machinery used in this opencast working was brought in; and, so that he may have an idea of the magnitude of this machine, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would be kind enough to look at the photograph which I have here. As a result of the approach of this gigantic machinery to the edge of the mountain overlooking the Six Bells, there was very considerable interference with television reception for miles around. It is estimated that 80 per cent. of the houses now have television receivers—that is, about 8,500. About one-third of the houses have "piped"

television, and the rest, about 3,870. have private or rented sets.
Information from two of the largest dealers in the area is as follows. The B.B.C. pictures, under normal conditions are exceptionally good but, due to the operation of the excavator, it is estimated that 80 per cent. of the B.B.C. output is affected to varying degrees. The Independent Television pictures, also under normal conditions, are about only 50 per cent. as good as those from the B.B.C. but, because of the operation of the excavator, they must now be regarded as a complete write-off. One of the dealers has great difficulty in collecting hire charges for rented installations, for very obvious reasons.
The cost of a television set is roughly £70 to £80. This is where I should like to bring the problem into sharp focus for the purpose of this debate. I know that in the Parliamentary Secretary I speak to a person who is sympathetic to the human issues involved. There may be a lot of argument about the place of television in the home life of Britain today, and whether it is a good or a bad thing, but there can be no argument that by this time it is a social necessity. It is not to be thought of as a luxury. That there should be such a situation as I have described, with these thousands of homes unable to receive anything tolerable in the way of television reception. I claim is a serious deprivation.
From his experience of mining communities in Scotland, the Parliamentary Secretary must know how this position is aggravated and intensified in the mining valleys of South Wales, where we suffer from a serious lack of the normal amenities found in urban communities in Britain. As he knows, we have also suffered from the vagaries and vicissitudes of the mining industry. The majority of our people live in long, unimaginative rows of houses which are clinging desperately to the mountainside or are in the murky depths of the valley. Then comes this great medium of television and the horizons of the people are widened and the windows of the world, so to speak, are opened to them for entertainment, culture and education.
To people living in mining valleys this could mean a tremendous enrichment of life, but since the summer, and


because of this gigantic machine, many people have seen nothing but distortions of what other people see in very acceptable viewing night after night. For these people to have the Radio Times and the T.V. Times every week is almost a mockery. All they can ascertain from those publications is what they are unable to see on their own television sets and what they would have seen if their sets were able to receive programmes in a decent manner.
To come to the background story, early in August representations were made by a local miners' lodge, a large lodge of 1,700 members. Representations were made to Abertillery Council about poor reception of television programmes in the area. These were followed by representations from private individuals and television dealers. The Council immediately got into touch with the Opencast Executive of the National Coal Board which, I must say, is very helpful and co-operative. In turn, the Executive got into touch with the Post Office and the Council was assured that within a few weeks, because of ameliorative measures taken by the Opencast Executive—by creation of new tips to screen or shield the jib of the excavator—it was thought that television reception would improve.
Unfortunately, that did not happen. If anything, the problem was aggravated and worsened. I was asked by the Abertillery Council to arrange for a deputation of the Council to meet the officials of the Ministry of Power and the Post Office. The meeting took place on 6th November. The Minister conceded in a subsequent letter to me that the members of the Council put their case very persuasively and convincingly. They made three representations. The first was that the operations should cease altogether. The second was that the machine which has become the cause of the complaints should be moved immediately in an easterly direction on the mountain to a point where the jib will no longer interfere with the television signals. The third was that, if those two suggestions were not acceptable to the Minister, further consideration should be given to a suspension of the working of the giant machine during the hours of television broadcasting.
The Minister replied, after consultation with his officials, that he could not possibly accept the first two submissions, because of the sanctity of the contracts made and the impossibility of terminating existing contracts with the ensuing heavy financial penalties.
I speak tonight for very sane, balanced and reasonable people. They were naturally a little hesitant about accepting immediately the refusal of the Minister, but they certainly have not pressed those two submissions any further. They were, however, acutely disappointed that the Minister did not feel empowered to look more into the third submission, namely, the cessation or suspension of the excavator during the normal hours of televising. They suggest cessation between 2 p.m. and 11 p.m. I, believing in the great British art of compromise, would ask for an even shorter time, say between 5 p.m. and 11 p.m.
The machine works twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. A few years ago it caused serious flooding, but that is incidental to this point. It has already caused much grievance in the local hospital because of the sound it necessarily makes. Does the Parliamentary Secretary consider that the Ministry could meet the Council half way on its third submission and make a counter-proposal? It would not be a serious financial loss for this huge, mammoth machine not to be working for the six hours from 5 to 11 at night in these days. In this valley we have stockpiling of coal at a tremendous momentum. It would be a social asset to the people living in these conditions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider this suggestion after I have sat down and he has replied. I know that he cannot commit himself now.
I was hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary would be able to see his way to see the Minister tomorrow morning. I have already prepared the way for that, because I saw the Minister and told him that possibly his Parliamentary Secretary would be seeing him tomorrow to see whether at this Christmas season this small concession could be made to people who have really pulled their weight in the last few years for the industrial prosperity of the country; who, since time immemorial, have put up with the inevitable concomitants of deep mining, and who now have this additional source of disadvantage—opencast mining.
After all, the Parliamentary Secretary is a Scot and the Scots have imagination like the Welsh. He can imagine the scene in hundreds of homes in the township of Abertillery. A man comes home from work, from the colliery or from the factory, sits down for the evening, puts on the television set and in a very short time these distortions of the picture begin. I suggest that such a state of affairs must create, and create unnecessarily, a sense of grievance which could be put right.
I seriously ask the Parliamentary Secretary to do what he can to put the matter right as a gesture at this season of the year when television programmes are supposedly at their best and when all over the country millions of people will be settling down to enjoy this great medium and the advantages which it brings. It is surely not asking too much for the Minister to consider suspending the operation of this mammoth excavator for those evening hours. If he does he will earn the good will of the thousands of people concerned who have bought television sets for as much as £70 or £80 and who now, to use a colloquial expression, feel a sense of having been done because of this mammoth excavator on the top of the mountain.
I ask the Minister to make this suggestion. It would be much appreciated, and I am certain that, in the long run, he would never regret having made it.

11.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): The hon. Member for Abertillery (The Rev. LI. Williams) has put his case in an expressive, attractive and appealing way. As a Scot to a Welshman, one is almost immediately induced to say yes. But things are not as simple as that. I will deal in as few words as possible in the short time left to me with the matter which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
First, I want to make two apologies to the hon. Gentleman. The first is because neither my right hon. Friend the Minister nor I could receive the deputation which he led to the Ministry. We were both new to the job and were very immersed in our new duties. The second apology is because my right hon. Friend is absent this evening. He wrote to the hon. Gentleman, and he regrets very much that his duties have kept him away from this debate. Both my right hon.

Friend and I are very conscious of the social and cultural value of television in the valleys of Wales, just as, as the hon. Gentleman said, I am conscious of it in the isolated villages in Scotland. I am conscious also of the annoyance, irritation and frustration which he has described.
After the day's work is done people are ready to sit down before the fire and enjoy an evening's viewing, only to find when they switch on that there is no picture at all or else only a most uninteresting attempt at a picture. I understand all these things. My right hon. Friend expressed his sympathy to the urban district council and I now join with him in extending my sympathy. He rightly said that the council expressed its points with great restraint. It exhibited great reasonableness in putting the case before the Ministry. I hope that, after hearing what I have to say, the House will agree that our approach to the case is equally reasonable.
The site in question is not one site, but a group of sites, and there are 4 million tons of coal in them. Area "D" is at the centre, and is the source of the irritation because it overlooks Six Bells in Abertillery, where sits this mammoth excavator which the hon. Gentleman has so graphically described, with a huge jib composed of a great mass of steel which intercepts the radio beam and re-radiates it to the village of Six Bells, with the result that viewers receive a double picture on their screens—

The Rev. LI. Williams: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that it interferes not only with Six Bells but with the whole of that district at Abertillery.

Mr. George: I am not aware of that. Six Bells is mentioned in the submission to us.
It is not a consistent interruption. It varies with the position of the jib of the excavator, and it is acute for a period of two weeks at a time as the excavator moves to a point just above the village, almost in the centre of the site.
These are the facts, and complaints were made, as the hon. Gentleman has said, by the miners' union and by the council. The National Coal Board acted very promptly. It brought in the Post Office, and the Post Office engineers tried to shield the aerials so as to preserve the picture. That failed, and they


said that the only cure was to create a high spoil heap which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
That was the position when the complaint was first made. The council approached the Minister, and put forward its points, as did the hon. Gentleman tonight, with great reasonableness and with great attractiveness. The council's first solution was very simple—just to abandon the site. That, indeed, was a simple solution. The second was to move the excavator out of range, and the third was to stop it during the hours of viewing from 2 p.m. until 11 p.m.
The first solution is attractive, but the Board operates one industry over the whole of the country and makes its plans on a national basis. It has made drastic cuts in its opencast programme—a cut of 50 per cent. between 1958 and 1960—by not renewing contracts. This has been done to avoid the payments of huge sums in compensation for cancelled contracts. That was the national policy. To cut existing contracts would, in the Board's view, have incurred prohibitive compensation payments. That is the national picture.
Next, we must ask if there is anything special about this site to make an exception of it. Looking at the situation as we did at the Ministry, advised by the Board, we found that it would mean a complete cancellation of area "D," and compensation for cancellation would be heavy. Frankly, we have to weigh payment on such a scale against the interference in the village. We therefore felt that solution No. 1 was out. I think the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have come to the same conclusion.
The second suggestion was to move the excavator. That seemed an easy solution—just to move the jib away from the points where its presence caused interference in the village. That would, however, involve very drastic technical changes in plans for the extraction of coal. The probable result, at its worst, would be the abandonment of the site and, at its best, a major change in the contract and, again, the incurring of very heavy compensation payments. So No. 2 is out.
The third solution, which the hon. Gentleman put so appealingly, would avoid the difficulties arising from sug-

gestions No. 1 and No. 2, but would incur new penalties. This huge machine cost a lot of money—a great deal of money, not only to buy it, but to take it to and erect on the site. That cost a vast sum of money, and the only way to get the capital back and pay the capital charges is to work the machine at full speed twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week. The contractor put in his price to work the coal on the basis that he worked the machine day and night for seven days a week; to shut the machine down for even six hours a day would be a serious disruption of his plans and would, again, involve very heavy compensation payments. But the jib would still be there. We could not guarantee that it would be away from the village every day at 2 o'clock or at 5 o'clock. It might be right on the spot, with the interference as bad as ever.
We did not turn down the council's ideas lightly. They were all studied with the utmost sympathy, but those were the reasons which made my right hon. Friend come to the conclusion that he could not recommend the National Coal Board to accept any of the proposals that were put forward. We are entirely sympathetic and we have looked at the matter from another angle. The Coal Board has been very active and has been moving fast to carry out the Post Office engineers' suggestion. The Board has set about raising the spoil heap by another 20 ft. and has taken action to drop the excavator by another 20 ft., making a 40 ft. increase in the shield between the jib and the village. A great deal has been done to screen the jib and it has been done every day to an increasing extent.

The Rev. LI. Williams: My information is that it has made no difference.

Mr. George: Then let us come quickly to the results. I claim that they show substantial success. The Post Office report on 13th November, after visits from its engineers to the houses, was that reception was much improved. On 10th December, the engineers made a similar routine visit and said that the reception was generally fairly good and that there was a notable improvement. I can only go by those reports of the Post Office engineers.
The jib will be completely screened in three months' time. That period is the


estimate of the Opencast Executive of the National Coal Board. During that three months, however, which seems a long time to bear the interference, it will be acute in only one more two-week period. Towards the end of January, the jib will be in the position to give acute interference in the village. That will be the next time and the last time. That is the extent of the interference which we have to consider when weighing the possibilities of incurring huge compensation. When that is done, the Post Office engineers are confident that interference will cease.
The Board, however, did not stop there. As the hon. Member knows, it had another site further up the hillside to develop later. It has decided now to abandon it completely. That means that, with the abandonment of that site, extraction of coal will stop completely in eight to ten months' time, and there should be no interference in the last five or six months. The Board will be in occupation for a further three to six months in filling but using only small machines which will not interfere with television reception. I have one last small point, which, although not in reply to the request for a gesture for Christmas, is that the machine will not be working between noon on Christmas Eve and 9 a.m. on 27th December.
I ask the hon. Member to believe that my right hon. Friend and I and the Coal Board have studied this matter sympathetically from the outset knowing the disturbance that was caused to family life. We express our deep regret for the irritation caused to the people of Abertillery. We are grateful for the restraint which has been shown by the hon. Mem-

ber, the urban district council and the people of Abertillery. The Coal Board, however, has been diligent, the contractors have been co-operative and the end is in sight. The time of trouble will pass and reception will again resume the efficiency which has been enjoyed for so long. A few more weeks of patience and understanding will see this unfortunate aspect closed. National considerations sometimes overrule vital local issues. It was on that basis that the Minister felt hound to turn down the council's objections, and I hope that the House, the hon. Member and the council will accept his decision.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I should like, in the last minute, to express the hope that even now the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the suggestion that there should be further consideration of this matter with the Minister. I know Abertillery. I know the people there. It is nearly fifty years since I first went to Abertillery. This is a human problem. In a sense, it is symbolical of what is happening in this age of a great centralised power exerting its weight and the life, the interests and the social values of the ordinary, common man and woman in the village being lost under this weight. I make my appeal, with my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (The Rev. Ll. Williams), that there may still be consideration of the points which he has put forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.